Lakhwinder Singh v. Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 12 Aug 2011 · 2011:DHC:18251-DB
Pradeep Nandrajog; Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 5815/2011
2011:DHC:18251-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision denying reinstatement but awarding compensation to a petitioner wrongly diagnosed as color blind and discharged from military service after a seven-year delay in challenging the diagnosis.

Full Text
Translation output
$-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5815/2011
LAKHWINDER SINGH Petitioner
Through: Ms.Archna Ramesh, Advocate
VERSUS
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE &ORS Respondents
Through: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
12.08.2011
ORDER

1. Heard le^Vned counsel for the petitioner.

2. At a medical examination held in the year 2001, being diagnosed as unfit due to colour blindness, petitioner was discharged from the military service where he was employed in the Sikh Light Infantry.

3. After 7years, in the year 2008, petitioner raised the issue of his being wrongly diagnosed as a colour blind person.

4. W.P.(C) No.7594/2008 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court directing that the writ petition be treated as a petition under Regulation 143 of the Defence Services W.P.{C) No.5815/2011 ^ 2011:DHC:18251-DB V Regulations.

5. Needless to state as per the Regulation in question, the petitioner had aright to seek areview medical board to examine his stated medical disability.

6. The respondents, re-diagnosed the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was colour blind; afinding which is incorrect.

7. O.A. No.373/2010 has been disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the petitioner has been wrongly diagnosed as a ^ colour blind person but would not be entitled to reinstatement in V- service inasmuch as he had approached the High Court after 7 years and secondly the reason that he has become over age. However, compensation in the sum of ?5,00,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner.

8. We find that the Tribunal has balanced the legal rights of the petitioner with equity, l<eeping in view that the petitioner had raised the isstie of his discharge belatedly after 7 years. ^ 9. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and ^ thus dispose of the writ petition in limini.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (NIL GAUR, J AUGUST 12, 2011