Delhi High Court
C.Arunagiri vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 November, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: November 22, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 7089/2012
C.ARUNAGIRI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Archana Ramesh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by : Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Corps of Signals on
January 10, 2001 and earned promotions, currently reaching the rank of a
Naik.
2. While working in an operational field area in Ladakh at an accident on
November 21, 2008 the petitioner suffered grievous injuries resulting in his
right leg being amputated right above the knee.
3. Requiring family aid, not only physical but even by way of comfort,
since the petitioner hails from the State of Tamil Nadu, he was posted at
Chennai on February 15, 2010.
4. Vide Signal dated July 14, 2012, the petitioner has been directed to
report for duty at the Headquarter of the 29th Infantry Division stationed at
Mamun near Pathankot.
5. Representation made by the petitioner to be retained at Chennai has
met with no response necessitating the filing of the instant writ petition.
6. On November 8, 2012, when the writ petition came up for the
preliminary hearing, noting that in a writ petition filed by one Vinod Kumar,
registered as W.P.(C) No.4056/2010, a Division Bench of this Court had
desired that the Army should evolve a transparent transfer/posting policy
with respect to such force personnel who have suffered disability while
serving in operational areas and are to be treated as a battle casualty, we had,
while deferring hearing of the writ petition required learned counsel for the
respondents who appeared on advance copy of the writ petition being served
to find out and inform this Court whether a policy has been framed as was
desired as per the order dated November 16, 2010 passed in W.P.(C)
No.4056/2010.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents informs that the Army
authorities, in consultation with the Union of India, are in the process of
formulating a policy.
8. Suffice would it be to state that such soldiers of the Indian Army, who
suffer injuries in operational areas while on duty and are required to be
treated as battle casualty, are being retained in service and are obviously not
being posted in hard areas. However, depending upon the nature of
disability the requirement of the person being with the family needs to be
considered and a policy needs to be put into place.
9. Noting the disability suffered by the petitioner and taking into account
that the transfer/posting of Vinod Kumar had been stayed till the transfer
policy with respect to disabled persons is put into place, we dispose of the
writ petition quashing the Signal dated July 14, 2012 and simultaneously we
issue a mandamus that the petitioner should be retained at his current place
of posting being Head Quarter ATNK and K Area, Chennai, till the transfer
policy is framed by the respondents and notified for further action.
10. No costs.
11. Dasti.
C.M.No.18343/2012
Dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 22, 2012
jk
