Union of India, New Delhi and others vs Sailender Singh

The order dated 28.8.2014 passed in L.P.A. No. 415 of 2008 is being sought to be reviewed on the ground that the order under review was passed without hearing the counsel appearing for the Union of India.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the order, it does appear that the respondent-Sailender Singh was appointed as Constable in the Border Security Force on 12.3.1987. On 10.9.1992, the respondent-Sailender Singh suffered bullet and bomb injuries in discharging of his duties. On 11.6.1999 the respondent-Sailender Singh was examined by the Medical Board who found him unfit for the job which he was discharging and thereby on 17.2.2000 the respondent-Sailender Singh was made to retire compulsorily.

Being aggrieved with that order, the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3058 of 2000 was preferred by the respondent-Sailender Singh. This Court having regard to the provision as contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act, 1995 set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter keeping in view the aforesaid provision. The authority upon fresh consideration set aside the order, under which the respondent-Sailender Singh had been compulsorily retired. Consequently he was reinstated in service on 31.5.2002. Subsequently, the services of the respondent-Sailender Singh were terminated keeping in view the notification issued on 10.9.2002 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment stipulating therein that the protection contemplated under Section 47 of the said Act would not be available to the combatant personnel of Central Para Military Force (CPMF), such as Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Assam Rifles.

Being aggrieved with that, the respondent-Sailender Singh did prefer the writ application bearing W.P. (S) No. 1248 of 2005 which was dismissed on 12.11.2008. Being aggrieved with that, the respondent-Sailender Singh preferred letters patent appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 415 of 2008 which was allowed holding therein that the writ petitioner-appellant-Sailender Singh was reinstated on 31.5.2002 by the authority after the authority was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner-appellant-Sailender Singh in the light of the provision as contained in Section 47 of the said Act, whereas the said notification, by applying which the services of the writ petitioner was again terminated, had come into force on 10.9.2002 which cannot be given retrospective effect with and thereby the letters patent appeal was allowed.

Now that order is being sought to be reviewed on the ground that the said order was passed without hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

From perusal of the order, it does appear that learned counsel for the Union of India did not appear on account of the fact that there was a call of the strike by the lawyers. This cannot be said to be justifiable and, therefore, that cannot be a ground for review of the order.

Moreover, there does not appear to be any error apparent on the face of the record either on fact or law. Further, there does not appear to be any mistake committed by erroneous assumption of the fact which if allowed to stand, would cause miscarriage of justice.

Admittedly, the notification dated 10.9.2002 came into force after the services of the respondent-Sailender Singh had been reinstated.

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this civil review petition and as such it is hereby, dismissed.