Kerala High Court
Shaji G vs The Union Of India on 7 August, 2023
WP(C) No.3073/2020 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Monday, the 7th day of August 2023 / 16th Sravana, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3073 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
SHAJI G., 53 YEARS, NO.2002752 P EX RFN/GD, S/O. GOPALAN, GSP
BHAVAN, KARAVARAM P.O., KALLAMBALAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695 605.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN-110
001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, MAHANIDESHALAYA (THE DIRECTORATE
GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES) SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA, PIN-793 011.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P5 letter and
direct the respondents to re-consider the Exhibit-P3 representation,
taking note of the directions and findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and release the monitory
benefits due to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition
(civil).
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.P.P.BIJU, Advocate for the petitioner and of DSG OF INDIA for the
respondents, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.3073/2020 2/5
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------
WP(C)No.3073 of 2020
-------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023
O R D E R
I have heard this matter quite in detail
today.
2. The assertion of the respondents is that
the head injury sustained by the petitioner,
leading to his discharge from service, was not on
account of anything attributable to his work.
However, a document has been produced on record
as Ext.R2(c) in substantiation, which has an
uncorroborated entry therein to the afore effect.
3. Even though the petitioner seeks benefits
under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995, prima facie, it
may not be available to him on account of the
WP(C) No.3073/2020 3/5
WP(C)No.3073 of 2020
express exclusion under the proviso to Section 47
of the said Act.
4. However, if the petitioner had been
invalidated on account of disability, he would
have been entitled to Disability Pension, and not
merely Invalid Pension, as has been now done.
This has been occasioned only because
respondents take the stand that his disability
was not on account of employment, but other
reasons; however, nothing has been placed on
record to explain how the petitioner had
sustained injury, particularly head injury.
I am, therefore, certain that respondents
shall explain this, so that even if the benefit
of Section 47 of the Act is not deserving to him,
the petitioner would at least obtain Disability
Pension.
WP(C) No.3073/2020 4/5
WP(C)No.3073 of 2020
Sri.Prenjith - learned Central Government
Counsel, seeks two weeks time to obtain
instructions in this regard.
List, therefore, on 24.08.2023.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
SAS JUDGE
07-08-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.3073/2020 5/5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3073/2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.11.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF THE SAME
ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS.
07-08-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
