Mohan Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3001 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA 153/2014
%                                                   8th July, 2014

MOHAN PAL SINGH                                         ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                     ...... Respondents
                   Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the first

appellate court dated 15.4.2014 whereby the first appellate court allowed the

appeal of respondent no.2/employer/ITBP against the judgment of the trial

court dated 26.11.2012 by which the trial court had decreed the suit of the

appellant-plaintiff and ordered reinstatement in services.       In the suit

reinstatement in services was prayed for on the ground that the appellant was

not hard of hearing as declared by the Medical Board of the employer/Union

of India/ITBP.



RSA 153/2014                                                               Page 1 of 3
 2.    The facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled as a Constable

with ITBP on 11.4.1988. When the appellant was posted in Chandigarh, he

was issued a memo dated 8.5.1992 that the appellant-plaintiff's case was a

case of C.S.O.M (RT) OPTD C Conductive Deafness (R) and that was so

reported before the Sector Medical Board on 30.3.1992. Appellant was

informed that he could challenge the findings of the Medical Review Board

before an appellate authority alongwith the certificate of a Government

Doctor not below the rank of a civil surgeon. Appellant did apply for a

review certificate, however, the courts below note that the Doctor namely

Dr. A.S.Bhalla , on the basis of which certificate of review was applied, was

not a civil surgeon. It also may be noted that the appellant had been even

earlier operated for deafness on 29.6.1991 i.e prior to the issuance of the

memo dated 8.5.1992, however, there was no improvement in the condition

of the appellant.


3.    Both the courts below have passed detailed judgments referring to the

aspect that the appellant has failed to file any proof that PW-2 Sh.

A.S.Bhalla was of the rank of civil surgeon. Accordingly, the suit of the

appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.




RSA 153/2014                                                               Page 2 of 3
 4.    A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only if there is a

substantial question of law. In the present case, there is no question of law

much less a substantial question of law, in view of the fact that there is no

proof of PW-2/Sh. A.S.Bhalla being of a rank of a civil surgeon and above,

and only on the basis of which certificate of a civil surgeon, review could

have been applied for and the findings of the Medical Review Board on the

basis of which memo dated 8.5.1992 was issued to the appellant questioned.


5.    There is hence no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 08, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib