AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.
The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
a)To quash the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 and Screening Committee Recommendation along with posting order dated 19.05.2016.
b)To absorb and post to the applicants on any alternative post Clerk and others with sedentary in nature in the light of the medical Board Reports dated 29.02.2016 and 05.10.2015
c)To pass any such other and further order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
d)Award the cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.
The case of the applicants lies in a narrow compass that the applicants were appointed to the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) on 02.09.1998 and 25.04.2002, respectively. Applicant - 1 was sent for medical examination after undergoing prolonged medical treatment, wherein the Medical Board observed that he was unable to perform his duties as Head Constable in the RPF, including train-running and passing duties. Accordingly, he was recommended for a sedentary job in medical category B-1 and below (Vol.-I), as per Para 12.9 of the IRMM-2000, vide Medical Board Report dated 29.02.2016. Similarly, Applicant - 2 was medically examined on 30.09.2015 by the Divisional Medical Committee, which observed that he was no longer fit to perform duties as an RPF Constable and recommended that he may be provided an alternative post involving sedentary duties in medical category B-1 and below, as per Para 12.10 of the IRMM-2000, vide Medical Board Committee Order dated 05.10.2015.
Subsequently, the Sr. D.S.C. (RPF), Mughalsarai, informed the DRM, Mughalsarai, vide letter dated 01.03.2016, that no alternative post was available in the RPF Department and that the concerned employees had been declared unfit for their existing duties but fit for sedentary duties in medical category B-1 and below. Accordingly, their cases were referred for providing suitable alternative employment.
Pursuant thereto, the DRM (P), Mughalsarai, passed an order dated 19.05.2016, whereby the applicants were posted as Technician-II in the Diesel Shed under SSE/Diesel/Mughalsarai against alternative posts, as recommended by the Screening Committee. However, the post of Technician is not a sedentary post and, according to the applicants, the said posting was not in conformity with the recommendations contained in the Medical Board Reports dated 29.02.2016 and 05.10.2015.
In view thereof, the applicants joined the aforesaid alternative posts while raising objections vide representation dated 30.05.2016 and requested that they be posted against any other suitable alternative post involving sedentary duties. However, no heed was paid to their request. Consequently, the applicants earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1026/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter.
In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondents passed the order dated 03.03.2022, whereby the claim of the applicants was rejected. The said order dated 03.03.2022 has been impugned in the present Original Application.
Per contra, a Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 02.08.2022, wherein it has been stated that the applicants were appointed as Constables in the RPF w.e.f. 28.07.2002 and 02.09.1998, respectively. The applicants were medically de-categorized and declared fit in medical category B-1 and below vide Medical Board Reports dated 05.10.2015 and 29.02.2016, respectively.
The medical fitness required for the clerical cadre is C-2 and below, whereas both the applicants have been declared fit in medical category B-1 and below, which is a higher medical category than that required for clerical posts. Therefore, the Divisional Screening Committee recommended their placement against alternative posts of Technician-II/Diesel/C&W under the Sr. DME/Diesel, and the same was approved by the competent authority. The applicants have already been provided alternative employment, which is identical in scale and conforms to the prescribed medical category. The applicants have not been deployed for duties involving running lines, train running or passing duties and, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
It has further been stated that the employees who have been declared fit in medical category C-1 and below by the Medical Board have been posted as Junior Clerks/Senior Clerks against alternative posts. The Screening Committee, after considering the medical category, ability and utilization of the employees, recommended their placement against suitable alternative posts. Hence, the respondents contend that the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 21.11.2023, reiterating the same facts as has been stated in Original Application.
Mr. S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 on the ground that the same has been passed without properly appreciating the specific recommendations of the Medical Board in respect of both the applicants. Both the applicants were medically de-categorized from their respective posts in the RPF and were specifically found fit for sedentary duties in medical category B-1 and below. Despite the said recommendation, the respondents posted them as Technician-II in the Diesel Shed, which, is not a sedentary post and is not compatible with the restrictions imposed by the Medical Board.
Learned counsel further submitted that mere compliance with the prescribed medical category cannot be treated as sufficient when the Medical Board had specifically recommended a sedentary job. The respondents' contention that the applicants were not deployed on running lines or train-running and passing duties does not address the specific requirement of providing sedentary work. It was also submitted that the respondents themselves have admitted that employees declared fit in lower medical categories were accommodated against clerical posts, which indicates that suitable sedentary posts were available. The Screening Committee, therefore, ought to have considered the nature of duties along with the medical category, instead of mechanically allotting the post of Technician-II. The respondents have also failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), particularly Rules 1307, 1309 and 1310, which govern the manner in which a medically de-categorized employee is to be provided suitable alternative employment.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the applicants had joined the alternative posts under protest and had immediately raised their objection vide representation dated 30.05.2016, requesting suitable sedentary alternative employment. Their grievance has thus remained consistent from the very beginning. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that based on the medical fitness assessment of the applicant and in compliance with the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the applicant was posted as Technician. The applicants were medically de-categorized and declared fit in medical category B-1 and below by the competent Medical Board. Since the medical category prescribed for clerical posts is C-2 and below, the applicants, being fit in B-1 and below, were medically eligible for such posts. However, after considering their medical category, suitability, ability and utilization, the Divisional Screening Committee recommended their placement against the alternative posts of Technician-II/Diesel/C&W, which was duly approved by the competent authority. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.03.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicants have already been provided suitable alternative employment in accordance with their prescribed medical category. The applicants have not been assigned duties involving running lines, train running or train-passing duties, and, therefore, the mere fact that they have been posted as Technician-II cannot be a ground to contend that the alternative employment is medically unsuitable. The respondents further submitted that the Medical Board had only prescribed the requisite medical category and the applicants have been assigned duties consistent with their medical fitness. Hence, there is no violation of the medical recommendations.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the provisions of Rules 1307, 1309 and 1310 of the IREM do not confer any absolute right upon a medically de-categorized employee to seek appointment against a particular post of his choice. The alternative employment is required to be determined by the competent authority after considering the medical category, suitability and availability of posts. In the present case, the Screening Committee duly considered all relevant factors and recommended suitable alternative employment, which was approved by the competent authority. Hence, the Original Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents on record.
As the brief of the facts of the case have already been stated above, the same is not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The short question which arises for our consideration is whether the alternative post of Technician-II offered to the applicants was in conformity with the recommendations of the Medical Board. From the Medical Board Reports dated 29.02.2016 and 05.10.2015, it is evident that the applicants were declared unfit for performing their duties in the RPF but were recommended for sedentary jobs in medical category B-1 and below. Thus, while considering their alternative employment, the respondents were required to take into account not only their medical category but also the nature of duties which they were medically capable of performing.
In the present case, the respondents have justified the posting of the applicants as Technician-II mainly on the ground that the said post carries the requisite medical category and that the applicants were not deployed on running lines or on train-running and passing duties. However, the respondents have not satisfactorily established that the duties attached to the post of Technician-II in the Diesel Shed were sedentary in nature and in conformity with the specific recommendation of the Medical Board. Merely because the applicants were not assigned running duties cannot, by itself, establish that the alternative post provided to them was suitable, particularly when the Medical Board had specifically recommended sedentary duties.
It is also significant that the applicants had immediately raised their objection against the posting as Technician-II and had requested that they be provided suitable alternative employment involving sedentary duties. Therefore, their grievance cannot be treated as an afterthought. In our considered view, the respondents were required to objectively examine whether the post offered to the applicants was suitable having regard to the specific medical recommendation and the nature of duties attached to the post. The impugned order, however, does not reflect any such consideration and has proceeded mainly on the basis of the medical category applicable to the post.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside and same is hereby set aside. In view of the quashment of the impugned order, the respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the applicants for their placement against suitable alternative posts involving sedentary duties, keeping in view the recommendations of the Medical Board and their medical fitness, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after examining the matter objectively, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the applicants shall not claim any particular post as a matter of right.
Resultantly, original application stands allowed.
All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.
No order as to cost.