Delhi High Court
Colonel Ramanjit Singh Kapany ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 May, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~15.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3531/2016
COLONEL RAMANJIT SINGH KAPANY SENA MEDAL (IC-
46400 L) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
with Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 18.05.2016
1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondents was directed
to produce the note dated 15.12.2014, mentioned in the letter dated
23.12.2014, emanating from the Military Secretary's Branch and filed at
page 60 of the counter affidavit. The said document has been produced
today. However, the same does not throw any light on the issue except for
reiterating that the Military Hospital, Kamptee is equipped with an
Orthopaedic Unit.
2. On the first call, the matter was passed over at the request of the
counsel for the respondents, who had wanted to obtain instructions from the
Department in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner that no
Orthopaedic Specialist is available at Military Hospital, Kamptee. On the
second call, counsel for the respondents states on instructions that though an
Orthopaedic Specialist is not available at the Military Hospital, Kamptee,
but a Surgeon Specialist is available and he has been attending to patients,
suffering from orthopaedic problems including arthritis, ever since he was
posted there in October, 2015. He further states that had the petitioner
referred to his mother's medical condition while submitting his
representation dated 01.12.2015, the said aspect would have been examined
while considering his request for a last leg posting at Pune. However, para 6
of his representation only mentions the fact that the petitioner's sons are
studying in Pune and he has purchased a premises in Pune, where he
proposes to settle down post retirement.
3. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that if the petitioner submits a
fresh substantive representation wherein, amongst others, his mother's
medical condition could be highlighted for seeking his last leg posting in
Pune, the same shall be duly considered and a decision taken within two
weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that a fresh
representation shall be submitted by the petitioner within three days from
today.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of while directing the
respondents to decide the fresh representation proposed to be submitted by
the petitioner, under written intimation to him within ten days from the date
of receipt thereof.
6. Till an appropriate order is passed by the respondents on the
petitioner's representation, they shall not give effect to the impugned order
dated 20.04.2016.
7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents,
he shall be entitled to seek his remedies in accordance with law.
8. The petition is disposed of
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 18, 2016
rkb/mk
