Prahalad Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1398 Del

$~17.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 1363/2016
     PRAHALAD SINGH                            ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. G.D. Bhandari, Advocate with
                   Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate

                       versus

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, Advocate with
                    Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Preet Singh, Advs.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       ORDER

% 22.02.2016

CM APPL. 5962/2016 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 1363/2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia that the respondents, particularly, respondent No.2/RPF be

directed to conduct his Review Medical Board for

examining/decategorising him for an alternate post in the Railways.

2. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was working on the post of a RPF Constable ever since

02.10.1989. In the year 2014, he was detected with mouth cancer and

has been undergoing continuous treatment for the same. As the

petitioner had remained unfit for undertaking routine duties, he

submitted a representation to the respondents that he had not been

paid the salary from June, 2014 and further, that he is entitled to work

on a supernumerary post of RPF Constable from 10.06.2014, the date

when he was admitted on the on sick list of the Railway Hospital, so

that he could redeployed on an alternate job with all consequences.

Learned counsel submits that several representations have been

submitted by the petitioner to the respondents and the last one is

dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-16) but they have not taken any

decision till date.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance

notice, assures the Court that the petitioner's pending representation

dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-16) shall be considered by the

Competent Authority and appropriate orders passed at the earliest.

4. In view of the said submission, the present petition is disposed

of with directions issued to the respondents No.4 and 5 to consider the

petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2015 as expeditiously as is

possible and pass a speaking order within four weeks from today,

under written intimation to him. If any amounts are due and payable

to the petitioner, the same shall be released within the very same

timeline. Further, if the respondents decide to re-deploy the petitioner

on an alternative job as per the rules, then he shall be assigned the

said job at the earliest and preferably within two weeks from the date

of deciding his representation. If the decision taken by the

respondents is not favourable, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek

his remedies in accordance with law.

5. The petition is disposed of.

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents for compliance.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J FEBRUARY 22, 2016 rkb