Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Prabha Shringi Lrs Rajendra Kumar ... vs M/O Railways on 8 September, 2021
1 QA_Ne, 291/649/2014 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Original Application No. 291/649/2014 Order reserved on: 06.09.2021 Date of order: 98:07 24... CORAM: HON''BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J) Rajendra Kumar Shringi s/o Shri Ram Het Vyas, By caste Brahmin, By caste Brahmin, r/o House No. 510, Mahavir Nagar-I, Kota Rajasthan (since deceased) thorugh his legal heirs- 1/1. Mrs. Prabha Shringi w/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Shringi 1/2. Master Bhaskar Shringi s/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Shringi 1/3. Bhumika Shringi d/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Shringi By caste Brahmin, r/o House No. 510, mahavir Nagar-lI, Kota Rajasthan. | , Applicants... (By Adv: Shri C.B. Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer (C) West Central Railway, Kota Rajasthan. 3. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Division Railway Hospital, West Central Railway Kota-324002 Rajasthan. 4. The Division Railway .Manager, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan. 5. The Chief Medical Director, West Central Railway Jabalpur (M.P.). Respondents... (By Adv: Shri Anupam Agarwal) P er: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A "+ =tnesh Sharma, Member (A) ORDER
: : . . . e.
On this case the applicant (whe died during th pendency of this Original Application a by his Legal applicant to refer to this deceaseq had prayed for the following relief:
We Representatives ;
nd is now represented We are using the word employee of the railways) certificate of fe] p) category and to get entire benefits in Services of the respondent Railway;
By an 4PPropriate Order action of the respondent issue the certificate under to petitioner be declared trary, unreasonabie, unjust whimsical and illegal;
By an appropriate Order or direct Certificate-dated 30.07.2014 and the letter- dated 23.09.2014 (Annexure-I) issued by respondents declining issuance of IOD to petitioner and declaring him as unfit for all services of Railways be quashed and set or directions, the Sin declining to the lop category aS Wholly arbj ified, Malafide, ions, the aside as the same have been issued without considering entire facts and circumstances oy on opooriate order or directions, the respondents be directed to give the Penefit of IOD in services to the applicant forthwith; and further, to treat the applicant as an IOD Case;3
QA No, 291/649/2013 Vv By an appropriate order or directions, the respondents be saddled with an declining issuance exemplary cost for of I1OD certificate to the applicant and iving him of the benefits thereof 'accordingly;
vi. By an appropriate order or directions, the Cost of the Original Application may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble applicant.
vii. Issue such other order or directions as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon' ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the humble applicant."
>, The case of the applicant is that he met with an "accident at 09.45 a.m. on 06.05.2013 and suffered very serious injuries which led to his hospitalisation in Kota. He was later shifted to Delhi and after an operation of the spine brought back to Kota where he has undergone treatment at the Railway Hospital. Because of serious damage suffered in this accident he is unable to walk or perform any normal work. The applicant has stated that he was carrying official papers and was on way to his office when the accident occurred. Yet, his request to treat the injury suffered by him as Injury on Duty (IoD) and give him the benefits related to such treatment, despite recommendation by respondent No.2 (Dy Chief Engineeer letter dated 02.04.2014 at Annexure-A/6), are denied to him. The respondents have also now declared him medically unfit for all services. The applicant claimed that he was capable of doing desk work Mo aenle 4 eA a te meme Ah HO Fo cee a ne Pe ot re Ne oe --
and, therefore, the orders at Annexure-A/1, declining issuance of IOD and declaring him unfit for all services should be set aside.
3. The respondents No 1, 3 to 5 have denied a reply in which, while not denying the fact of accident and injury to the applicant, have denied the applicant's claim for treating it as an 10D. Quoting their rules (Annexure-R/1), the reply states that the concerned medical authorities have rejected the claim of the applicant on valid grounds. The accident happened on 6/5/2013, the applicant for the first time reported sick before the railway hospital on 10.08.2013 and the IOD memo was issued on 13.02.2014. As per IRMM para 1504 and 1505 nine months is too late to register IOD. The reply also states that the accident happened at 09.45 a.m., while, the time for reaching office was 09.30 a.m. and, therefore, contributory negligence by the applicant (hurrying since he was getting late in reaching office) in the accident cannot be ruled out. In a separate written statement, the respondent No. 2 has accepted recommending the case of the applicant for IOD but has supported denial of the applicant's claim by the medical team on the basis of rules,
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder stating that due to serious injuries suffered in the accident it was not possible for him to file formal requests/reports to claim IOD. The delay in making this claim before the medical authorities was not due to his fault. The fact of the accident was reported immediately after the accident and the officers concerned | part had reached the spot and even recovered the blood stained official papers.
5. The matter was finally heard on 06.09.2021. The Learned consels for both the parties repeated the arguments 'mentioned in their respective pleadings.
6. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, it is clear that there is no dispute regarding the facts mentioned in the pleadings. It is accepted by both the ies that the accident happened when the deceased employee was on his way to the office. The respondents have nowhere clearly stated the applicant was not on duty when this accident happened. The learned counsel for the respondent very categorically stated, in his arguments, that even if the applicant suffered injury during duty, he could not be given benefit of IOD since the rules prescribed certain
- conditions for giving these benefits which were not fulfilled in this case. We are reproducing here the relevant extracts of the rules quoted by the respondent and produced as Annexure-R/1:
"1504. Medical Examination of injured workmen:- If a workman sustains injury while on duty, his immediate superior will either arrange for the injured workman to be examined by the nearest Railway Medical Officer at the site of the accident, or will arrange for the injured workman to proceed, or to be conveyed, to the authorised medical officer with a memo on the prescribed form as given in Annexure I to this Chapter. The Railway medical officer, after examination of the injured workman, will issue, if the workman is not fit to return to work immediately, a sick certificate in the prescribed form (Sick certificate) as given in Annexure XI to chapter V with a rubber stamp bearing the words: "This injury is consistent with the statement that it was caused by accident", as well as a certificate in the prescribed form as given in Annexure II to this Chapter giving particulars of the part of the body injured, the nature of the injury - whether simple or grievous-
and the probable period of disablement, and forward the same to the immediate superior of the injured workman.
1505. Injury Report Register:-
(1) An entry of all cases of injuries with which a Railway doctor has to deal must be made in an accident register which is to be maintained in every hospital and health unit. This entry is in addition to the entries made in any other register, such as on daily attendance register or on case papers.
(2) The entry in the accident register must be made as soon as possible after the patient is seen for this first time and thus becomes an extremely valuable record of the first clinical examination.
Sufficient space should be left below the entry so that additional information obtained later on such as X-ray reports, admission to hospital, or subsequent death of the patient during the period of treatment for the injuries can be entered neatly and without encroachment on the next entry.
(3) Records of injuries to employees "on or off duty", family members of employees and members of the general public must be kept each in a separate section of the register. There should be diagrammatic figures on the reverse of the report, on which the details of injuries are injury to be shown."
7 We also get hints about the reasons for rejection of IOD from the correspondence between Chief Medical Superintendent and the Dy Chief Engineer (Annexure-A/8 and Annexure-A/9). In Annexure-A/9, the Dy Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) has given clarifications to the queries raised in Annexure-A/8. We are reproducing both the queries | (only English version).
Queries raised in Annexure-A/8 as under:
",) war ae Gden ard & eRe sere ard & ore gE ®? Neither was he using any public or Govt, Conveyance.
ii.) If the witness signed in the IOD memo were present at the site.
iii.) It is also not mentioned whether he was off duty or on duty in the initial information sent by your department.
iv.) only simple sick memo was given on 10.08.2013 after 3 months and IOD memo not issued on that day but IOD memo was given on 13.02.2013.
Vv.) As per rules date of injury and date of IOD registration must be on same day. In this case, date of injury is 06.05.2013 and date of sick on 10.08.2013. Please inform about the period from 06.05.2013 to 09.08.2013 has been treated. Patient first reported in the Railway Hospital on 10.08.2013, when he told that is on perosnal leave from 06.05.2013 to 09.08.2013.
vi.) Please explain the delay in issuing of IOD memo was given on 13.02.2014, whether date and time of injury was registered in the log book of WCA act at your office on 06.03.2013.
vii.) No report of injury was attached with IOD memo. | viii.) What is actual designation of employee whether he is governed under Works man Compensation Act or he is ministerial staff."
Replies given to aforesaid queries vide Annexure-
A/9 are as under:
"(i) Yes. He was coming on duty with some drawings to be got modified at Dy. CE (C) Kota's office by his private vehicle,
(ii) No. As they got the information of accident they reached at the accident side.
(iii) When the information memo was sent to CMS-WCR-KOTA for accident, it was only sent when the employee is on duty as per record.
(iv) It is not disputed that sick memo was given on dated 10.8.2013 and IOD Memo was issued on 13.2.2014.
(v) It is not disputed that the date of injury and date of 10D registration must be on same day. Due to very critical condition of the patient the 10D could not be taken on the same day and when he was suggested by neuro surgeon to be shifted to Delhi, he was taken on the very same day to Delhi. He was on private sick upto 09.08.2013 as per this office record (Copy of sick memo enclosed).
(vi) Explained in earlier paras for delay in issuing 10D memo. The accident did not take place on 6.3.2013 but it was on 06.05.2013 and no such log book is maintain in the office.
(vii) Yes. Not it now again been submitted.
(viii) Actual Designation of the employee is SSE (w) C-Kota. Yes. Governed by employee's Compensation Act."
8. It is clear from these that the claim of the applicant has been rejected mainly due to the late sending of IOD memo by his controlling officers. The report of the controlling officer 9 04 No, 291/649/2014 is clear about his being on duty. The controlling officer has also explained why there was delay in sending it. The medical reports by the railway doctors (showing him incapable of doing any work, even of holding a pen) would leave no one in doubt about the seriousness of the applicant's injury. All this injury was due to an accident which happened at the time the applicant was admittedly on duty. The injured obviously could not be expected to file the FIR, or send the IOD memo and complete ali those formalities which are found missing and given as reasons for - denial of IOD. In this situation, it is very difficult to resist the temptation to quote from a popular Hindi Film (Munna Bhai MBBS) where it is asked, by way of a very cruel joke, how a person shall filla form when lying in a pool of blood after an accident. However, since the Tribunal cannot decide a case on the basis of filmi understanding, we have gone through every word of the rules quoted by the respondents, reproduced in para 6 above. We do not find anything in these rules which prohibit consideration of a case like the one before us, The rules cast duty on the immediate superior to get the injured examined by the nearest Railway Medical Officer at the site of the accident or to arrange the injured workman to be conveyed with a memo in prescribed form. It also talks about injury report register with records of injuries "on or off duty". These rules nowhere cast any duty on the injured to do any of these things. We find that the respondents have, while admitting that the applicant, while on duty, had a very serious accident causing 10 OA_No, 292/649/2014 injuries totally incapacitating him, have denied him IOD because others pei who were responsible for acting under Rules 1504 and 1505, did not do their job properly or in time. This is gross _injustice to a person, who, after prolonged illness, eventually died, due to the injuries suffered during that accident. The rules quoted by the respondents (Rule 1504 and Rule 1505) do not say anything about the IOD and if there are any rules or guidelines which prohibit grant of IOD for not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in these rules, these were not produced before us. The respondents have also talked about contributory negligence, but that argument is more by way of a hypothesis and cannot be taken seriously, in the absence of any proof, and without giving an opportunity to the affected person to counter it. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in finding that the denial of IOD benefits (these are not specifically mentioned either by the applicant or the respondents, but it is apparent that there are benefits in the form of leave etc.) for reasons mentioned by the respondents, is wrong and not maintainable.
9. This brings us to the other relief prayed by the applicant, challenging his being declared medically unfit for any services. This relief has obviously become infructuous due to the death of the applicant. Even otherwise, the medical report left no doubt about his being unfit and the applicant's prayer was apparently "hoping against hopes".
Thus, we cannot accept the prayer about quashing page 2 of 11 QA No, 291/649/2014 Annexure-A/1, whereby the applicant was informed about his being declared unfit for all medica! categories. We, however, partially accept the prayer by quashing the part regarding not accepting the applicants request for 10D.
10. The Original Application is, thus, partially allowed, The respondents are directed to extend to the applicant (his Legal representatives) all the benefits that are due to a within 6 months from the person getting injured on duty, date of receipt of this order.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) LVv~