Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
M M Sahoo vs M/O Railways on 21 February, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017
Reserved on 08.02.2024 Pronounced on 21.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Madan Mohan Sahoo, aged about 60 years, S/o.- Krushna
Sahoo, at present working as TPMA/ East Coast Railway,
GRKN, resident of At- Sadanandapur, P.O.- Gadarupas, P.S.-
Gop, Dist.- Puri, Odisha.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the General Manager,
East Coast Railway, E.Co.R Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist.- Khurda.
2. Medical Director, Central Hospital, East Coast Railway,
Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Dist.- Khurda.
3. Chief Medical Superintendent, East Coast Railway,
Divisional Railway Hospital, At/P.O.- Jatni, Dist.- Khurda.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway,
Khurda Road Division, At/P.O.- Jatni, Dist.- Khurda.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Mahapatra, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The nub of the grievance of the applicant, working as TPMA in E.Co.Rly, in GRKN and retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, is that he was initially appointed in Railway on 01.11.1997. While working as a TPMA/GRKN under E.Co.Rly., due to his illness, he went to Railway Hospital at Paradeep on 24.07.2015 when he was referred to Divisional Railway Hospital, Khurda Road. On the very same day, he was admitted to Divisional Railway Hospital and remained there till 21.08.2015. On 21.09.2015 he was further admitted and remain as an indoor patient till 13.10.2015 in the Divisional Railway Hospital, Khurda Road. He was referred to Central Hospital, Garden Reach, Orthopedic Unit for his checkup where he was admitted as an indoor patient on 11.12.2015 and remained till 21.12.2015. The grievance of the applicant is that although the discharge certificate from Central Hospital, Garden Reach dated 21.12.2015 (A/2) declared him "unfit for duty", the Divisional Authorities neither referred him to Medical Board nor declared him medically invalid. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that due to the deteriorating health 3 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 condition of the applicant, on 20.06.2016 the Divisional Medical Officer referred him to Pradyumna Bal Memorial Hospital where after through checkup, the doctors opined that he was "unfit to do any job". It is submitted by him that the applicant remained on constant medication in various hospitals including SCB Medical College, Cuttack and KIMS, Bhubaneswar. In the meanwhile, on being referred by the Divisional Hospital, applicant's left hip was replaced by way of surgery. It is submitted by him that the discharge certificate of S.E.Rly. 05.04.2017 (A/9) shows cross mark in the column (a), i.e. he is fit for duty, which implies that the applicant was declared unfit for further duty. However, in letter dated 18.04.2017 (A/10), the opinion of the Medical Board was quoted advising the applicant to undergo right hip surgery (THR). Applicant preferred representation on 20.05.2017 requesting the authorities to refer him to SCB Medical College & Hospital to assess his disability by Medical Board and to disburse the salary from the month of April, 2016 onwards. Having receiving no reply, applicant filed OA 362/2017 but in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal dated 14.06.2017 (A/12) to consider his prayer taking into account his submissions and to take appropriate decision to re-examine him in the Medical Board for 4 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 coming to a decision in the matter, respondents vide letter dated 12.08.2017 (A/13) informed him that Medical Board has opined and recommended to undergo treatment for ailments like Diabetes mellitus, Hypertension, Spondylo rheumatologist, physiotherapy for 3 months and total hip replacement of Right hip joint. Being aggrieved, he has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:
"a. To quash the decision of the Medical Board communicated vide letter dtd. 12.08.2017 under Ann.- A/13;
b. And direct the Respondents to declare the applicant medical invalid for further service w.e.f. 02.08.2017;
c. And to direct the Respondents to regularize the period from 24.07.2015 to 01.08.2017 as duty and pay the arrear salary;
And pass any other order......................."
2. Respondents have filed counter opposing the prayer of the applicant inter alia stating that initially the applicant was admitted at Central Hospital, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar from 24.07.2015 to 21.08.2015 for various ailments like spondilo arthropathy (HLA B27 +ve) with bilateral arthritis with subsequent development of T2 Diabetes, High Blood pressure and TB and, after treatment, he was discharged and was advised to remain on certain medication and to attend Sr. DMO (Physician), Khurda Road and Sr. DMO, Cuttack for 5 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 further necessary treatment and evaluation. He was admitted at Divl. Railway Hospital, Khurda Road from 21.09.2015 to 13.10.2015 for his treatment and after improvement of medical condition and control of blood sugar, he was discharged on 13.10.2015. For Orthopedics and rheumatologist consultation, he was referred to Central Hospital, Garden Reach where he was admitted and remained from 11.12.2015 to 21.12.2015. On being discharged, he was advised to continue some medicines and to attend rheumatology OPD at BR Singh Hospital, Sealdah after two weeks for review. The mentioning of "he is unfit for duty, in the discharge certificate was temporary in nature to give him some rest and necessary medications for recuperation of his health. Since there was no observation that he was permanent unfit for any duty, it was not necessary to send the applicant for any Medical Board for declaring him permanent unfit. Further, when the applicant developed some problems, he was admitted at Divisional Railway Hospital, Khurda Road for ortho and rheumatology consultation and was referred to KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 20.06.2016 for further management and opinion for fitness and otherwise. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the rheumatologist specialist of 6 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 KIMS Hospital while mentioning the case of the applicant to that of Ankylosing spondylities- advanced disease, B/L hip space and giving remark that he is unfit to do any job, further advised Total Hip Replacement, hospitalization and ortho referral and to continue the medicines. Here also, unfit to do any job does not declare the applicant permanent unfit but temporary unfit for the job till further treatment and recovery. The specialist had advised surgery as a remedial measure for applicant's recovery. Had there been no chance of recovery, the specialist would not have suggested for surgery B/L Total Hip Replacement. Thereafter, the report of the SCB Medical College, Cuttack also discloses that the applicant's case is of SPA 07 with DM-2 on OAD/AVN (B/L) hip and the left hip replaced. While advising some investigations and medications, it was opined that fitness can be decided by the Medical Board. Applicant was admitted at Divisional Railway Hospital, Khurda Road on 24.08.2016 for checkup by the Medical Board. On 08.12.2016 and members of the committee recommended alternate employment in C1 category or below of sedentary nature of job on medical ground. The applicant was discharged on 03.01.2017 with advice to continue medicine and to 7 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 attend medical and Surgical OPD for review. His case was further examined by the Medical Board of Central Hospital, Bhubaneswar and the Medical Board in its report dated 01.04.2017 opined as under:
"after going through history, medical examination of the patient in detail, considering the opinion of orthopaedic and rheumatologist consultants, the board is of opinion that the symptoms of Sri Madan Mohan Sahoo are out of proportion to his clinical signs. As there is no permanent deformity any other joint than right hip, he should undergo Total Hip Replacement (THR) of right hip and he is likely to improve with anti-TNF therapy. Hence the members of the medical board unanimously opine that Sri Madan Mohan Sahoo should undergo THR right hip and receive Anti-TNF therapy, i.e. Etanercept, atleast for three months and then should be reviewed."
3. Placing reliance on the entire sequence of events, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that since there was no report of any of the Medical Board that the applicant was permanently unfit to perform duties. Rather, whenever, the applicant was examined and discharged, he was either recommended medicines or was referred to other hospital for further treatment. This Tribunal in its order dated 14.06.2017 in OA 362/2017 had given specific direction to the respondents to re-examine the applicant in Medical Board for coming to a decision. Accordingly, the Medical Board was constituted, which on thorough examination of the applicant, on 12.08.2017 opined to undergo further treatment but never declared him permanently unfit 8 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 to discharge his duties. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire record including the various medical reports.
5. After considering the contentions advanced by the parties with reference to their pleadings and materials placed thereof, we have perused the records and rules on the subject. Rule clearly provides that where a competent authority has reason to belief that a railway servant is suffering from contagious disease or a mental or physical disability which in the said authority's opinion is interfering with the efficient discharge of duties by the railway servant the said authority may subject the railway servant to a medical examination. If, in the medical examination, the railway servant is declared unfit to continue in service, the competent authority may invalidate and retire him/her from service on medical grounds. If the railway servant is on duty, he/she shall be invalidated from service from the date of relief. Thus, it is clear that the premature retirement on medical invalidation is subject to declaration by the Medical Board specifically stating therein that the employee is unfit to continue in service.
9 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017
6. In the instant case, the applicant, while in service, had sought to retire on medical invalidation in the year 2017. He was subjected to Medical Board as provided under rules. The Medical Board, in its report, stated that "after going through history, medical examination of the patient in detail, considering the opinion of orthopaedic and rheumatologist consultants, the board is of opinion that the symptoms of Sri Madan Mohan Sahoo are out of proportion to his clinical signs. As there is no permanent deformity any other joint than right hip, he should undergo Total Hip Replacement (THR) of right hip and he is likely to improve with anti-TNF therapy. Hence the members of the medical board unanimously opine that Sri Madan Mohan Sahoo should undergo THR right hip and receive Anti-TNF therapy, i.e. Etanercept, atleast for three months and then should be reviewed". Be that as it may, while the matter stood thus, the applicant reached the normal age of superannuation and retired from service and, consequently, he must have been sanctioned and paid all his retirement dues as per rules. Since, the applicant has already retired from service, his prayer to retire him on medical invalidation from 2017, especially when the medical board after re-examination did not found him unfit from 10 O.A.No. 260/00527 of 2017 further service is unwarranted under law because the authority concerned are under obligation to act in accordance with rules and as we find, they did so. In view of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the decision making process of the matter requiring this Tribunal to interfere. Consequently, no justification has been placed by the applicant to direct the respondents to regularize his service from 24.07.2015 to 01.08.2017 and pay salary accordingly. By elaborating the medical treatment he underwent, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has made endeavour in course of hearing to justify the grievance of the applicant. Law is well settled that sympathy and sentiment has no role for the Court and Tribunal to interfere in the decision of the competent authority, which was/is just, proper and in accordance with rules. In view of the discussions made above, this OA fails.
7. In the result, OA is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS