C.A. No.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 30194 of 2008 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3940 OF 2010 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 30194 of 2008]

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

JASWANT KUMAR ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The  respondent  herein  was  appointed  as  a  

Constable with the Central Reserve Police Force  on the  

2nd of April, 1991 and was posted  on polling duty in  

District Poonch, Jammu in the year 2002.  During his  

duty guarding ballot boxes, he suffered an injury in an  

encounter  with  terrorists  and  as  a  result  of  a  

ricochetting bullet, received a splinter injury to the  

right  eye.   In  the  Court  of  Inquiry  that  followed  

regarding the incident, the respondent was applauded  

for his courage, intelligence and earnestness and was,  

accordingly,  given some special benefits as well.  The  

respondent  subsequently  filed  a  petition  before  the  

High Court of Delhi claiming two reliefs:

C.A. No.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 30194 of 2008 2

(i) the  benefits  of  the  Group  Personal  Accidental  

Insurance Scheme (GPAIS Scheme) and  

(ii) accelerated  promotion  on  the  basis  of  Assured  

Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme).

In so far as the first aspect is concerned, the  

High  Court  in  its  judgment  expressed  surprise  that  

though  the  papers  had  been  forwarded  to  the  United  

India Insurance Company on 22nd September, 2005, as it  

was that agency which was to make the payment, nothing  

had been done for almost three years from that date  

though the premium was being deducted every month from  

the respondent's salary.  A direction was, accordingly,  

issued to the Union of India to take up the matter with  

the Insurance Company and to ensure that the benefit of  

the  Group  Personal  Accident  Insurance  Scheme  were  

remitted to the respondent with interest for delayed  

payment as per the norms within a maximum period of  

three months from the date of judgment.   

3. The second claim of the respondent herein was,  

however,  strongly controverted by the Union of India.  

It was pointed out that as per condition No. 6 of the  

ACP Scheme, promotions were to be made from amongst  

those  persons  who  were  under  the  medical  category  

Shape-1, and that the respondent herein was not of the  

requisite category, as he had suffered an injury to the

C.A. No.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 30194 of 2008 3

right eye and as such was not entitled to promotion  

notwithstanding the fact that his case for promotion  

had been forwarded to the concerned authority and he  

had appeared in the test and passed the same as well.  

The  High  Court  however,  observed  that  as  the  

respondent's case had been forwarded for promotion and  

he  had  actually  taken  the  test  and  passed  it  

successfully and as the only defence of the Union of  

India was that his candidature had been forwarded by  

mistake, was a factor that did not warrant that  the  

respondent should be kept out of the promotion scheme.  

The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed.   

4. The present appeal has been filed by the Union  

of India impugning the judgment aforesaid.  

5. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor  

General and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the  

respondent.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case that have  

been brought to our notice by the learned counsel, more  

particularly,  that  the  respondent  was  a  meritorious  

person, his case had been forwarded for accelerated  

promotion under the ACP Scheme and that he had cleared  

the test and completed the training as well and it was  

at that stage that an attempt was being made to keep  

him back on account of his low medical category, no

C.A. No.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 30194 of 2008 4

interference is called for in the peculiar facts of the  

case. However, the legal issues raised are kept open  

for  discussion  in  some  other  suitable  case.    We  

further direct that the Union of India-appellant will  

ensure that the Insurance Company which is not a party  

before  us,  will  make  the  payment  to  the  respondent  

within a period of three months from today in terms  

ordered by the High Court..

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI APRIL 28, 2010.