Live
- India Faces Blow as Pacer Mohammed Shami Ruled Out for Remainder of Australia Series
- Biden Pardon: Joe Biden Commutes Death Sentences of 37 Inmates, Including Child Killers and Mass Murderers
- South Korea: Yoon believes impeachment trial takes priority over martial law probe
- Strict Action for Non-Adherence to Time Management - DMHO Dr. Swarajya Lakshmi
- Over 13.29 lakh houses approved for rural poor in Maharashtra: Shivraj Chouhan
- District Collector Urges Timely Completion of Indiramma Housing Scheme Survey
- Digital Arrest Scam: Hyderabad Man Duped of ₹7 Lakhs by Fake Crime Branch Police Callers
- Sukhbir Badal seeks President's Police medal for officer who saved his life
- US Firm Accordion Acquires Merilytics, Launches 1,500-Seater Office in Hyderabad
- Free Medical Camp Organized by Alampur Advocate Bar Association
Job Of CRPF Personnel Restored By Supreme Court After 38 Long Years
Job Of CRPF Personnel Restored By Supreme Court After 38 Long Years
Highlights
- After reportedly remaining away from duty and engaging in quarrels with citizens while under the influence of alcohol, the CRPF personnel was ejected from his position.
- The Supreme Court reinstated his position and all related benefits dating back to 1984, including a pension, but not back wages.
The position of a Central Reserved Police Force Personnel has been restored by the Supreme Court. After reportedly remaining away from duty and engaging in quarrels with citizens while under the influence of alcohol, the CRPF personnel was ejected from his position. After 38 years, the Centre still hasn't found any proof against him. The Supreme Court reinstated his position and all related benefits dating back to 1984, including a pension, but not back wages.
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh led a two-judge bench that ruled in favour of paramilitary force personnel who reached retirement age in 2010. The Centre, on the other hand, had turned down the Court's offer that the government pay him a lump payment to end the case because he could no longer join the force. The Court awarded him relief because the government failed to file a case record and demonstrate that the relevant authority followed proper legal procedures before terminating his employment.
Balwant Singh, the aggrieved paramilitary, said that he was not provided a copy of the report against him or an opportunity to defend himself. He also claimed that the dismissal order was made without regard for natural justice. As a result, the Supreme Court ordered the Centre to keep a record of the events that transpired and led to the personnel's dismissal; however, the Centre stated that it was unable to furnish the requisite documents and that retrieving the records was impossible because they had been 'weeded out.'
As a result, the Court chastised the Centre for not taking a reasonable approach to remuneration in such circumstances, despite the fact that restoring a job would have greater financial consequences.
Next Story
ADVERTISEMENT
