Live
- BJP urges EC to stop Cong’s ‘Guarantee Cards’ campaign aimed to 'induce voters'
- Congress cheated Madigas: Dr. RS Praveen Kumar
- CBDT signs record 125 pacts to ease tax payments by big multinational firms
- Kamal Nath accuses BJP of ‘threatening’ Congress leaders in Chhindwara
- Odisha: BJP, BJD allege violation of MCC
- PM Modi lands in Guwahati to kickstart poll campaign
- ‘100 day action plan’ is PM Modi’s signature style for setting goals and meeting targets
- BJP will change the Constitution if they come to power again, says Priyanka Gandhi
- BJP-led NDA to cross 390-mark in Lok Sabha polls, predicts India TV-CNX survey
- Haier launches new TV series in four sizes in India
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
