AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Second Appellant was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. In 2002 he suffered an accident and after treatment he rejoined duty in 2005. On 23.01.2006, enclosing a copy of Ext.P1 medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, he applied for invalidating him from service. He was referred to the State Medical Board, which on examination, issued certificate dated 23.03.2006. Based on the certificate, the second Appellant was medically invalidated from service by Ext.P2 order, with effect from 23.03.2006.
Subsequently, the second Appellant submitted Ext.P3 application for compassionate appointment in favour of the first Appellant, his son and that was rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground that at the time when he retired from service on 23.03.2006, he did not have one year service left. It was challenging Ext.P5 and claiming appointment for the 1st Appellant, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 10.02.2010. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the Writ Appeal is filed.
Ext.R2(a) is an amendment to the Scheme which governs the appointment of dependants of employees who retire on medical invalidation. The said scheme makes it clear that to be eligible for compassionate appointment under the Scheme the employee medically invalidated should have at least one year or more service left at the time of medical invalidation.
In this case the contention raised by the Appellant is4 that when he applied for medical invalidation by his application dated 23.01.2006, he had submitted Ext.P1 medical certificate dated 20.01.2006 issued by the Medical Board. According to him, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 52 of Part III KSR, which is applicable to the employees of the Board, the applicant who submitted medical certificate issued under Rule 43, is entitled to be discharged from service, pending decision on his application. It is stated that thus if he was so discharged from service with effect from 23.01.2006 and he would have had more than one year left service and if so, his dependant would have been eligible for appointment. It is contended that the fact that the Board illegally retained him in service till 23.03.2006 should not have been a ground for rejecting the claim of the first Appellant.
However, we notice from Rule 52 of Part III KSR relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that this rule requires production of certificate issued under Rule 43. Rule 43 deals with the issuance of medical certificates for invalidation from service. Rule 43(c) provides as follows:
(c) No medical certificate of incapacity for service may be granted unless the applicant produces a letter to show that the Head of his Office or Department is aware of his intention to appear before the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer shall also be supplied by the Head of the Office or Department in which the applicant is employed with a Statement of what appears from official records to be the applicant''s age. Where the applicant has a Service Book, the age therein recorded should be reported.
Thus, a certificate as contemplated under Rule 43 (c) could not have been issued unless the applicant produces a letter from the head of office that he is aware of the intention of the applicant to appear before a medical officer. Rules also requires that the medical officer should also supply the details of the applicant''s age.
Ext.P1 certificate does not show that the said certificate was issued by the Medical Board in compliance with the requirements of Rule 43. On the other hand, Ext.P2 order invalidating the second Appellant from service shows that on receipt of the application for medical invalidation, he was examined and the Medical Board issued certificate dated 23.03.2006 to the effect that the second Appellant was completely and permanently incapacitated from service. This is the only certificate issued in compliance with the provisions of Rule 43 and only after production of such a certificate the second Appellant could have been invalidated from service. Records show that the second Appellant was in fact retired with effect from 23.03.2006, the date on which the certificate was issued by the Medical Board. This is fully in compliance with Rule 52 of Chapter III KSR.
If that be so, at the time when the Appellant was invalidated from service with effect from 23.03.2006, he did not have one year service left to be eligible to claim appointment to his son, the first Appellant. Thus rejection of the claim of the second Appellant for appointment in favour of the first Appellant cannot be said to be against the provisions of Rule 52 of Part III KSR or the Scheme framed by Board.
We see no reason to interfere with the judgment.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.