IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.534 of 2011 Vishwanath Paswan s/o Sri Chotelal Paswan, R/o Village Sherpur, P.O. Sherpur, P.S. Maner, Patna …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., New Delhi 2. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Baily Road, Patna 3. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of police Grup Centre, C.RP.F. Mokamaghat, Patna 4. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police(Administration) C.R.P.F. Patna …Respondents ----------- 04. 10.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. Petitioner assails the orders contained in annexures-1, 2 and 3. Setting of facts, out of which the present application arises, are as under: In the year 2002, an advertisement was published by the Central Reserve Police Force (for short „the CRPF‟) for appointment on Group D (Class IV) Post(s). Petitioner applied and after having cleared the physical test followed by medical fitness test, he was offered appointment on 11.11.2002 on terms and conditions indicated therein (Annexure-1). In accordance with the said offer, the petitioner submitted his joining whereafter he was sent for training as per the terms of offer of appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was on training, he suffered fracture of femur bone rendering him incapable of completing the training. He was immediately taken to the hospital of CRPF and thereafter referred to the PMCH for treatment. He remained under treatment for a long time. In 2 March, 2003, on being discharged from the hospital, he reported for duty. It is the case of the petitioner that during the said period an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the CRPF wherein it was found that the petitioner sustained fracture of Femur while going for training. The respondents by a communication dated 14.11.2003 (Annexure-1) dispensed with his services in terms of sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965(for short „CCS(TS) Rules,1965). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 1318 of 2004. This Court by a proceeding dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure-8) disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to make a representation and the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the same. In the light of the said order, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure-9). The respondents by a communication dated 6.4.2006 (Annexure-11) directed him to appear for review Medical Board. The petitioner appeared at the said Medical Board when the doctors examined him medically for the ailment suffered by him. Based on such medical test/examination, the Medical Board found the petitioner not fit for training and/or vigorous exercise. Said document is at Annexure 13. In the light of the report of the Review Medical Board, the respondents passed yet another order dated 13.05.2006 (Annexure-2) rejecting his representation. Unrelenting petitioner again approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 5133 of 2007 (Annexure-15). This Court by a 3 proceeding dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure-15) , disposed of the said application by the following order: “Let the petitioner seek review of the orders of the Additional DIGP dated 14.11.2003, Annexure-1 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of sustaining injury as also of the order dated 13th May, 2006 passed by the I.G., Bihar Sector, C.R.P.F., Annexure-2 who should consider the review petition filed by the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments. The review petition be disposed of as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months of its receipt. Petitioner will be well advised to annex the copy of the aforesaid two judgments along with the review petition.” In the light of the aforesaid order, the matter was again considered by the respondents and the order dated 25th November, 2010 (Annexure-3) was passed refusing to interfere with the earlier orders passed by the respondents as contained in Annexures-1 and 2. Aforesaid orders have been impugned in the present writ application. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application, submits that the authorities of the Respondent-CRPF are required to follow the provisions contained in the Act titled as The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 (for short „the Act‟). It is submitted that non-compliance of the provisions of the said Act, particularly section 47 thereof would render the impugned orders unsustainable in law. It has also been contended that Respondent-CRPF came out with Standing Order No. 7/99 (Annexure 16 to the supplementary affidavit) 4 detailing provisions for rehabilitation of those employees of the CRPF who became disabled during discharge of duty. Learned counsel submits that respondents were required to consider the provisions contained in the said Standing Order which they have not done while rejecting his claim. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was offered appointment on certain conditions. One of the conditions of offer of appointment was completion of training. It is the stand of the respondents that till the petitioner completes the training and is given appointment, he shall not be treated as employee on regular establishment of the CRPF. In the submission of the counsel the case of the petitioner till then will be governed by the terms/stipulations in the offer of appointment read with the provisions contained in Rule 5(1) of the CCS(TS) Rules,1965. As about implications of the provisions contained in 1995 Act, it is pointed out that by reason of a notification published in extra ordinary Gazette of India on 10th September, 2002, certain organization(s) including the present organization have been exempted from the provisions of the 1995 Act in general and sections 33 and 47 thereof in particular. I have heard the submission of the parties. Annexure-4 is the offer of appointment, it appears therefrom that the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Cook with following conditions: a. Your services are liable to be terminated at any time on one month‟s 5 notice during the initial period of your service i.e. 2 years by the appointing authority without assigning any reasons in accordance with the provisions contained in CRPF Rules,1955. b. xxx xxx xxx c. xxx xxx xxx d. xxx xxx xxx e. On joining this Department/force, you will be governed by CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Rules, 1955 as amended from time to time. f. You will be required to undergo basic training at any of the training institutions of the CRPF after reporting. If you are not successfully undergoing/completing the training your services will be terminated. You will be required to perform duties laid down as per Government Rules. According to the respondents, the status of the persons undergoing training like the petitioner would be governed by the Rule called CCS(TS) Rules,1965 and the terms and conditions of offer of appointment. On having finally been appointed and given a substantive post, the services of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions contained in CRPF Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to Annexure-1, states that invoking the provisions contained in Rule 5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules, the order was passed. Admittedly, the petitioner had not completed the training as while going to attend the training he suffered incapacitation. The training could not be completed. The case of the petitioner was thus required to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in CCS(TS) Rules,1965 and the action was taken thereunder in the light of order passed by this 6 court (Annexure-15), the petitioner was again subjected to review medical test, but unfortunately he was held medically unfit to complete the training. In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner was dealt with under CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 and was afforded notice for his disengagement/discharge. So far as the claim of the petitioner based on annexure-16 is concerned, on perusal of the said Standing Order, it appears that the same relates to the members of police force. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not complete the training which is pre- requisite for being inducted in police force. In that view of the matter, the provisions contained in Anneure-16 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. In view of my discussions above, this Court finds no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. While parting with the case, this Court feels that the respondents would have been benevolent enough to grant some ex gratia payment and/or lump sum payment to the petitioner since he became physically disabled while pursuing the training for which he was sent under orders of the respondents. Mr. Ahsan, learned Assistant Solicitor General states that the respondents will consider favorably for grant of ex gratia payment, if permissible in law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )