AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This writ petition filed by the Southern Railway Administration is directed against the order dated 15.03.2013 in O.A.
No. 381 of 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent''s husband Manikandan was working as Commercial
Clerk in Southern Railways and died in harness during 2010. The second respondent submitted an application for compassionate appointment,
such application was entertained and she was sent for medical examination. By communication dated 12.09.2011, the second petitioner informed
the second respondent/applicant that she was found unfit on medical ground, however, in the said communication, there were no reasons assigned
as to on what ground she was found to be medically unfit. Thereafter, the second respondent submitted a representation and another medical
examination is said to have been held during June, 2012, in which the second respondent''s blood sugar level was checked and it is stated that it
was around 140 and therefore, the Railway administration refused to grant appointment to her on the ground that she is medically unfit. This order
was challenged by the second respondent before the Tribunal by filing the Original Application. The Railway Administration resisted the application
by contending that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and as she has been declared medically unfit, the
administration was justified in rejecting her claim.
The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, allowed the Original Application. The Tribunal took note of the fact that in
the Railway administration, there is a Scheme for compassionate appointment and the case of the second respondent was considered in
accordance with the Scheme. The Tribunal further found that the only reason assigned by the petitioners is based on the medical report, which is to
the effect that the second respondent is a diabetic. The Railway Administration sought to describe the second respondent''s medical condition as an
incurable disease"" and declined to grant appointment on compassionate grounds.
Ms. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to para 511 9(d) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual Volume I,
submitted that the medical condition of the second respondent is a chronic disorder and it is deemed to be progressive and therefore, the Railway
Administration was justified in not considering the case of the second respondent.
We are unable to accept the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the said provision viz., Para 511 9(d) speaks about
constitutional disorders commonly deemed progressive and chronic disorders liable of recurrent exacerbation of a disabling kind. No record has
been placed by the Railway Administration to establish that diabetes is said to be a constitutional disorder commonly deemed progressive and
chronic disorders liable of recurrent exacerbation of a disabling kind. Medical experts opine that diabetes is a condition where the body fails to
utilise the ingested glucose properly. Further, there is a strong school of thought that a diabetic is not suffering from a disease, but only a disorder
that could be managed. Approximately, as of 2011 as per survey 62.4 million (as against 1.2 billion Indian population) are diabetics, which is
stated to increase in 2030 to 110.1 million form the large work force of our country. Diabetes usually has no impact on an individuals ability to do
a particular job, and in most cases the employer may not even know that his employee has diabetes. As the impact of diabetes and its management
varies among individuals there cannot be a blanket ban on giving public employment to persons with diabetes. The matter largely rests on individual
assessment, such assessment may occur in two different situation, first when the applicant is offered a placement/job subject to passing a medical
fitness test. In such cases, the fitness is assessed whether the applicant can perform the functions of that particular job/assignment, with or without
accommodation, not solely upon been diagnosed as a diabetic. The second situation is when on medical evaluation the employee being a diabetic,
could affect his job performance and/or safety, in such situation there shall be an assessment as to whether the employee could safely carry out his
duties assigned. In such circumstances, the assessment can hardly be based on a single blood sugar test.
The second respondent''s husband was a Clerk in the Railway Association and she has completed her +2 examination. In the given
circumstances one can reasonably conclude that the second respondent would have been unaware that her blood glucose level is higher than the
acceptable norms. It is unfair on the part of the Railway Administration to reject her candidature on a single blood test.
This Court is conscious of the legal position that there is no vested right to secure appointment on compassionate grounds. Yet, when the Court
finds that there has not been an objective consideration or arbitrary approach, this Court is not denude of jurisdiction from extending its arms under
Article 226 of Constitution. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the second respondent was eligible for being considered for appointment
on compassionate grounds, the application filed by her was well within a time, she was otherwise found eligible to secure employment. Therefore,
to deny employment to the second respondent on speculation that what might occur in future is unreasonable. Medical experts state that blood
glucose levels fluctuate throughout the day, which is also the case of people without diabetes, and one test result cannot be an assessment of the
overall health of a person with diabetes.
Therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in observing that the interpretation given by the Railway Administration appears to be a narrow
interpretation and for trivial reasons, the case of the second respondent was rejected. By taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we
find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal, granting the relief. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The petitioners/Railway Administration is directed to comply with the
direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 381 of 2012, dated 15.03.2013, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.