BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SPA/254/2017 · 2025-04-21
Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6043 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6043 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:2812-DB 1
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 254 of 2017 21 April, 2025
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited …Appellant
Versus
Sh. Krishan Kumar
…Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. I P Kohli, Advocate for appellant. None appears for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. challenging the judgment and order dated 1.5.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1895 of 2014. Judgment rendered by learned Single Judge is extracted below:
“Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Artisan. He sat in the written examination on 06.11.2011. He was interviewed on
28.12.2011. The petitioner was found suitable for the post, in question. He was medically examined on
16.02.2012. He was found medically unfit due to
“Diabetes”. Thereafter, petitioner again faced two Medical Boards. He was finally referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner was suffering from Diabetes beyond the normal parameters. 2025:UHC:2812-DB 2
However, in the meantime, the Recruitment and Promotional Rules, were amended on 06.08.2012, whereby the disease, suffered by the petitioner, was diluted. Accordingly to the new norms, petitioner and similarly situate persons could be appointed to hold the post of Artisan. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 27.08.2012, being a case of acute diabetes. The reason assigned for not offering the appointment to the petitioner was that he could not hold heavy machinery etc. However, there is no scientific proof of the same. Since, the Rules have been amended on 06.08.2012, it pre-supposes that the petitioner’s ailment would not affect his working as an Artisan. The Rules of 06.08.2012 are more progressive. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2012 is quashed and set- aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner, pursuant to the selection process which commenced in the year 2012, within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.”
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was not meeting the parameters as his blood sugar was found to be beyond permissible limits.
He submits that learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by giving benefit of the amended rules, overlooking the fact that the amendment was carried out in the rules on 6.8.2012, while selection process stood completed much before amendment of the rules. He further submits that candidature of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was rejected on 27.8.2012, therefore benefit of amended rules could not have been given to him. 3. We find substance in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Since the
2025:UHC:2812-DB 3 parameters regarding blood sugar was relaxed only on 6.8.2012, when the rules were amended, while selection process was completed as per the unamended rules, therefore, the benefit of amendment made subsequently could not have been extended to the writ petitioner. 4. Even otherwise also, the writ petitioner has reportedly passed away on 12.1.2018 and effect and operation of the impugned judgment was stayed by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 14.6.2017, therefore the judgment impugned before us has become unexecutable. 5. In such view of the matter, special appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.4.2025 Pr
PRABOD H KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f2 1c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EF DF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91 957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.21 17:24:43 +05'30'