Applicability of BSF Internal Rules

Sat Pal Singh vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed Under: Article 21 of Constitution of India. Sections 33 and 47 Persons with Disabilities Act
Appellant: Sat Pal Singh
Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2004 (2) JKJ 638
Court: In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu
Judge: Permod Kohli

Sat Pal Singh had filed a petition against BSF so that they do not board him out and provide him with a Shelter appointment.

Facts

Sat Pal Singh had been recruited as a Constable by the BSF after he had undergone the necessary training. He had also been promoted to a Lance Naik and later as Head Constable. During the course of his service he had been posted at various places in the Country including the State of J & K. While he was posted in District Rajouri, he met with an accident while traveling in a vehicle. As a result he suffered multiple injuries.

After being treated at Udhampur and in the BSF Hospital in Jammu, he was referred to the Medical Board in the District Hospital, Rajouri. The Medical Board assessed his disability to be 80%. Following this Sat Pal came to know that his case had been recommended for boarding him out of the BSF on account of his disability. Accordingly he filed a writ petition against UOI.

Arguments made on behalf of Sat Pal

Sat Pal's lawyer, referred to a judgment passed in a previous case by the Supreme Court. She urged the court that in view of the judgment passed in that case Sat Pal cannot be boarded out from service and should be given a shelter appointment.

Arguments made on behalf of UOI

In response, UOI filed its reply and claimed that it had not made any decision as far as boarding out of Sat Pal was concerned. Therefore, the writ filed against the UOI was premature. They further stated that Sat Pal had already been paid compensation in lieu of his disability amounting to Rs. 80,545/-. As far as the provisions of the Act were concerned, the UOI referred to the notification made by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

According to the UOI, this notification has exempted all the Central Para Military forces including the BSF from the purview of Sections 33 and 47 of the Act, in view of the type of work that is carried out by the members of the force. The UOI further mentioned in the reply that the department was not bound to provide any shelter appointment to Sat Pal, who had been paid the compensation. The UOI further contended that Sat Pal would also be entitled to a disability pension.

Observations of the Court

The question before the Court was of the application of the Act to the BSF and Sat Pal's right to claim benefit under the Act. After making references to the relevant sections of the Act and the notifications made by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Court decided that Sat Pal could not claim the benefits he had appealed for.

The Court also proceeded to show that the previous cases cited by Sat Pal's lawyer were not comparable to the present case in many aspects and therefore, the judgments made in the previous cases could not be used in this case as points that favor Sat Pal's appeal.

The Court concluded that no direction could be issued to the Union of India to not board out Sat Pal on medical grounds or to give him a shelter appointment. The Court further stated that this decision was particularly in view of the fact that compensation had already been paid to Sat Pal who would also be entitled to a disability pension.

Held

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India
  • Sections 33 and 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Cases Referred:

  • Kunal Singh. vs. Union of India and Anr, 2003 (2) Supreme 102
  • Kumar Chandla vs. State of Haryana and Ors, AIR 1995 SC 519