W.P.(C)/6531/2013 of JITENDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:RAM DATTSigning Date:15.10.2024 16:42Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing.

$~Spl. D.B.-3 to 7*IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C)2840/2010&CM Nos.5672,10071/2010

RKPANDEY

Petitioner

Through:

Ms. BarkhaBabbarand Mr. PratikSharma, Advs.

versus

UOIANDORS.

Through:

RespondentsMr. RuchirMishrawithMr.Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advs. forCISF.

W.P.(C)2899/2010& CMNo.5782/2010

K VERMAPetitionerThrough:None.

versus

UOIANDORS.,Respondents

Through:Dr. AshwaniBhardwaj,Adv.

W.P.(C)3051/2010,CMNos.6083-84/2010& 4570/2012

SYED SHAHID WAHID

Through:None.

...:. Petitioner

versus

UOIANDORS.

Respondents

Through:Ms. Saroj Bidawat,Adv.

pg.JofS

+W.P.(C)3965/2010& CMNo.22048/2010

NARAYAN DAKUAPetitioner

Through:None.

versus

Respondents

Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSCforUOI.

+W.P.(C) 6531/2013& CM No.14203/2013

JITENDERSINGPetitioner

Through:Mr. Chillar,Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA &ANR.RespondentsThrough:Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSCwith Ms. Madhuri Dhingra,^,Adv.forUOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

ORDER%20.07.2018

1.In these matters, directions were issued to the respondents toexamine their poUcy regarding positioning offices of the IndianArmy as well as the Central Armed Police Forces, who havedependents who are disabled.Similar orders to this effect werepassed in each of these writ petitions.

2.Though the exercise has been time consuming, we are

informed by learned counsel, representing all the authoritiesincludingthe Indian Army and the Central Armed Police Forcesthat necessary policy guidelines/instructionsregarding personnelwho are caregiversto disabled dependentsstand framed. In thisthehas beenbeforeus:regard,followingplaced

(i)An office memorandum datedSeptember, 2017^and 19"' March, 2018 regardingthe Central Armed Police

Forcesonthis issue(page 100 ofW.P.(C)No.3051/2010).(ii)Apolicydated 28"' March, 2013 (page 160) has beenplacedbearingno. 04521/MSPolicydated 28"' March, 2018issued by the Military Secretary's Branch in W.P.(C)2899/2010Lt. Col. A.K. Roy with regard to the officersofthe Indian Army.

3.The respondentshave additionallyplaced copy of letterdated 20"' July, 2017 as clarificationin the policyno. 04521/MSPolicy explainingthe term ''Dependents"(at page 186 of W.P.(C)No.2899/2010).

4.So far as the officers of the Indian Army are concerned, therespondents have filed the following policy in W.P.(C) No.2899/2010 Lt. Col.A.K.Verma v. UOI & Ors.:

"04521/MSPolicy20""July, 17

MILITARY SECRETARY'S BRANCH, (MS POLICY)

WP{C)2899/2010FILEDBY V-445M LT COLA.K.VERMA. RVC VS UOI AND OTHERS IN DELHI HIGHCOURT AT NEW DELHI

pg- 3 of5

jPIreftoMSLegalNoteNo.A/20001/429/RVC/898/MSLegaldt 25 Apr 17.2For the of MS Branch letter No.^ purpose04521/MSPolicy dt 05 Dec 14, the term 'Dependentsincl service person's spouse, unmarried childrenincluding step children or adopted children widoweddaughterswho are dependenton him/herand dependentparents whose income does not exceed the amountstipulatedin AO 120/80 (duly amendedfrom time totime).

3For yournecessaryactionpi.

(SS Base)MajAMS Policy"

5.Additionally,so far as JCOs and NCOs judicial and otherranks are concerned, the respondents have placed policy no.B/IO2OI/V0I-VIII/MP-3dated 1'^ September,2014 on this aspect.{atpage80ofW.P.(C)No.3965/2010).

In view ofthe above, it is directedthatthe respondentsshallensurestrictcompliancewiththe policieswhichthey have declaredas noted above.

6.W.P.(C)No.2840/2010; 2899/2010; 3051/2010and6531/2013 alongwith pending applications shall be treated asdisposed of. .

7. • Perusal of the policy would show that these relates only todifferently-abledadultchildren. We fmd thatthoughthe policyiscaptioned''PostingofJCOs/ORwithparaplegic/Spastic/Differentlyabledchildrenincladultchildrenanddependantfor specialized

pg. 4 of5

ir^nimont and care" (page 80), however in the body of theapplicationreferenceis made onlyto children.

The policy fails to take into consideration disableddependentswho may not be childrenand would includeadisabled or other relativesoron thespouse, parents any person dependentJCO/OtherRank; Let the respondentsexaminethis aspect ofthematterand placeon recordtheirpolicywithregardto the same.10.W.P.(C) 3965/2010NarayanDakua v. UOI &Ors. shall belistedfor this limitedon 24"'2018.purpose August,

Orderbe givendastiundersignaturesofthe CourtMaster.

ACTK^G CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 20, 2018/kr

J.R. MIDHA, J