LexSGT CHAMAN LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 8 S.C.R. 476 SGT CHAMAN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8834 of 2015) JULY25,2017 IDIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.j Service Law: C Promotion - On selection post - Claim for - By the handicapped officer, whose medical category was A4G4 (P) - Alleging discrimination in the matter of consideration for promotion, as officers with more percentage of disability were granted promotion - Application dismissed - On appeal, held: Medical catego1y of the appellant-officer is assessed on the basis of D parameters specified in the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 2008 - There is no reason to doubt the medical assessment of the appellant categorizing him as A4G4 (P) by the Medical Board - The categorization is based on several factors and not singularly dependant on the percentage of disability - Promotion to the post E of JWO is a select promotion hedged with the medical fitness eligibility criterion - Mere empanelment in the list of candidates due for promotion, would not create any vested right in the candidate to be promoted - The claim for promotion would depend on the fulfillment of eligibility requirements as per the promotion policy prevalent at the relevant time - The appellant did not possess the F medical fitness qualification for being considered for select promotion to the post of JWO. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995: s. 47(2)- Benefit under - Claim for - Held: The provision G under sub-section (2) is not im absolute stipulation. but subject to the proviso - The proviso empowers the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from its application, by issuing notification in that behalf- In the present case, notification was issued exempting the establishment, in which the appellant was employed, at the H 476 SGT CHAMAN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 477 relevant time from the application of the provisions of the Act - A Therefore, the appellant cannot claim benefit uls. 47(2) - Service Law - Promotion. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The plea . of the appellant regarding discrimination, has been justly rejected by the Tribunal. The B relevant facts regarding the officers who were named by the appellant before the Tribunal have been analysed by the Tribunal and there is no infirmity in the said analysis, as the same is founded on the record before the Tribunal. Therefore, the plea of the appellant, that the named officers had a higher percentage c of disability and were kept in high medical C?tegory, but the appellant was not given similar benefit, deserves to be rejected. [Paras 9, 11][487-B, C-D, G-H] 1.2 The medical category of the appellant is assessed on the basis of objective parameters specified in the Guide to Medical D Officers (Military Pensions) 2001!, issued by the office ofDGAFMS. The basis of assessment and other related matters to observe objectivity in assessment have been delineated in this policy document. The medical assessment is done by the concerned Board on those parameters without any exception. [Para 1211489- B I E 1.3 There is no no tangible reason to doubt the medical . assessment report in the case of the appellant, categorising the appellant as A4G4 (P). The fact that the percentage of disability of the appellant is relatively less than the other named officers would make no difference. In that, the percentage of disability is F not the governing factor, but the relevant consideration is the categorisation done by the Medical Board. The categorisation is based on several factors and not singularly dependent on the percentage of disability. To wit, an individual niay bear more percentage of disability but would still have nil employability G restrictions. The medical category is thus dependent on the employment and functional capacity of the individual which may vary from case to case. That is determined by the experts after applying the objective parameters noted in the policy document in that regard. Even otherwise, having regard to. the exigencies of the service involved and in the interest of overall ~tandard of H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R. A efficiency thereof, relatively increased rigorous adherence of all relevant norms bearing on the suitability for select promotion is called for. [Para 13)(494-D-GI 1.4 Therefore, less percentage of d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.