Madras High Court
Union Of India vs M.Chelladurai on 19 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1990 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.14583 of 2022
1.Union of India
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Director General,
C.R.P.F. CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
C.R.P.F Avadi,
Chennai – 600 005.
4.The Commandant
C.R.P.F. Avadi,
Chennai – 600 005. ..Appellants
Vs
M.Chelladurai ..Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.04.2022 made in W.P.No.25006 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellants .. Mr.C.Samivel
For Respondent .. Mr.P.Mohanraj
for Mr.J.Lakshminarayanan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned
single Judge dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No.25006 of 2015 in and by
which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein and quashed the order dated 27.07.2015 medically
invalidating the respondent and consequently directed the appellants
to refer his case to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board which is
constituted under the Standing Order No.04/2011 bearing Ref.
No.P.III.I/2011-Welfare dated 27.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said
direction, the respondents in the writ petition viz., C.R.P.F. is on
appeal.
2. Heard Mr.C.Samivel, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that there are three categories of disabled personnel which is clear
from Standing Order No.2. The respondent herein belongs to third
category i.e., 'those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases'. As
he is unfit for any job, he was medically invalidated out from service.
He would submit that the third category of persons could not be
referred to Departmental Rehabilitation Board constituted under the
Standing Order.
4. After considering the grounds raised by the appellants on
the previous occasion, this Court had directed the learned counsel for
the appellants to produce the posting details of the respondent, more
specifically in the light of the pleadings, that when the respondent was
posted in Assam, he proceeded on ten days extraordinary leave, when
he developed some abnormal behaviour and reported for treatment
along with his parents at Composite Hospital, Avadi on 23.03.2009. In
this background, the following details are presented before us by the
learned counsel for the appellants:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl. Content of Your Clarification
No. Email
1 Where are the places Posting particulars of the petitioner is as under:
Chelladurai rendered
Unit / Location From To
service?
Office
142 BN Avadi, Chennai 19/04/2003 17/05/2004
(Basic
Training)
142 BN Verinag, J&K 17/05/2004 15/06/2007
142 BN Jonaki Nagar, 15/06/2007 14/09/2011
Assam
GC Avadi Avadi, Chennai 19/09/2011 28/07/2015
2 Which is the last Petitioner Invalidated out from service w.e.f.
place he worked? 28/07/2015 while he was posted in Group Centre, CRPF,
Avadi, Chennai.
3 How long one can As per Ministry of Home Affairs OM
render service No.F.N.45020/1/2019/Legal-1 dated 19/08/2019 (Copy
(normal service enclosed) retirement age of an Para Military personnel
period)? is 60 years.
5. It can be seen from the above that the respondent was
recruited to the C.R.P.F. on 19.04.2003 and after undergoing training
at Avadi, Chennai until 17.05.2004, he was posted at Jammu and
Kashmir from 17.05.2004 upto 15.06.2007 and again from
15.06.2007, he was posted at Janaki Nagar, Assam. It can be seen
that only while he was working at Assam, in the year 2009, his
psychiatric disablement has started surfacing. It is ex facie clear that
the ailment of the respondent was on account of the nature of job the
personnel of C.R.P.F. performed especially when they are posted in
border States such as Jammu and Kashmir and Assam. In that view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matter, on the face of it, we reject the stand of the appellants that
while the respondent proceeded on leave for ten days, he developed
abnormal behaviour. The appellants should be alive to these kind of
sufferings of the personnel posted in border States, especially far away
from their homes. The appellants themselves have framed Standing
Order No.04 of 2011 which clearly categorises the personnel with
disablement. It is useful to extract Clause 2 of the said Standing
Order:
“2.The Department has three categories of disabled
personnel:-
(A) Those who are disabled due to injuries
sustained in action against terrorists/ anti social
elements/ insurgents/ naxalites/ while maintaining
law & order/ internal security/ undergoing training
or on any other bonafide duty.
(B)Those who are disabled due to sickness/
accident.
(C)Those who are disabled due to psychiatric
diseases.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It can be seen on a plain reading of Clause 2 of Standing
Order No.04/2011 itself that three categories of disablement including
those who are disabled due to psychiatric diseases also come within
the category of 'disabled personnel' and as per Clauses 5 and 6, all
disabled personnel should be referred to the Departmental
Rehabilitation Board. It is only the Board which has to consider taking
into account the physical disablement or the psychiatric disablement,
whether he would be fit for any job which is mentioned in Clauses 7
and 8 of the said Standing Order and if only said person is not fit for
those jobs, the procedure of medical invalidation would arise. In this
case, the mandatory requirement of the Standing Order to refer the
respondent herein to the Board was not done and therefore the
learned single Judge was right in setting aside the order impugned in
the writ petition and giving a direction to refer him before the
Departmental Rehabilitation Board.
7. Further, we would also like to add that in a case of this
nature, even if the Departmental Rehabilitation Board opines that he is
not fit for any job which is mentioned in Clauses 7 and 8 of the
Standing Order, which exercise, according to us, will be undertaken by
the Departmental Rehabilitation Board dispassionately, the personnel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
like the respondent cannot be left high and dry and have to be
compensated / treated appropriately.
8. In that view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal.
This appeal is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
19.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
mmi/2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1990 of 2022
19.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
