Live
- Three persons admitted to hospital for diarrhea treatment
- First Star Outside Milky Way Captured: WOH G64 is 2,000 Times Larger Than the Sun
- Sikkim govt to constitute state Niti Ayog: CM Tamang
- CBI books Rajasthan narcotics inspector for Rs 3 lakh bribe
- Rajasthan bypolls: A tough contest between BJP and Congress
- Albania joins SEPA, paving way for EU integration
- Japanese government approves 250-billion USD economic package to ease price pain
- Six pharma companies to set up their units in Telangana
- The Unstable Events of a 17-Wicket Day in Perth: India vs Australia
- Dutch FM's Israel trip cancelled after Netanyahu's arrest warrant
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
