Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babulal Meena S/O Shri Ramchandra Meena vs Union Of India (2023/Rjjp/000638) on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shubha Mehta
[2023/RJJP/000636]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16647/2022
Babulal Meena S/o Shri Ramchandra Meena, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Maharana Pratap Colony, Ward No. 7, Bandikui
Presently Working As Loco Pilot (Goods) Loco Bandikui. (Now
Retired).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, North
Western Railway, Head Quarter Officer Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power
House Road, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Railway
Hospital, North Western Railway, Ganpati Nagar, Railway
Colony, Jaipur.
4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Power), Office
Of Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Power House Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16465/2022
Babulal Meena S/o Shri Ramchandra Meena, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Maharana Pratap Colony, Ward No. 7, Bandikui
Presently Working As Loco Pilot (Goods) Loco Bandikui. (Now
Retired).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, North
Western Railway Head Quarter Officer Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Power House Road, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical Director, North Western Railway, Head
Quarter Office Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Railway
Hospital, North Western Railway, Ganpati Nagar, Railway
(Downloaded on 31/01/2023 at 11:52:32 PM)
[2023/RJJP/000636] (2 of 3) [CW-16647/2022]
Colony, Jaipur.
5. Shri V.k. Gupta, Chief Medical Superintendent Divisional
Railway Hospital, North Western Railway, Ganpati Nagar,
Railway Colony, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashwat Purohit on behalf of
Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
27/01/2023
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Shashwat Purohit, learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The petitioner was working as a Loco Pilot and he finally retired on 31.07.2018. During his tenure as Loco Pilot, he was medically examined on 31.05.2013 but the medical certificate was issued to him with four months of delay on 27.09.2013.
3. According to the petitioner the delay in issue of medical certificate has made him ineligible to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 14.06.2006. Aggrieved by the delayed issuance of certificate which had marred the chance of the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement, the petitioner preferred Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur.
4. The applications have been dismissed noting that since the petitioner has already retired, the desired relief cannot be granted to him.
(Downloaded on 31/01/2023 at 11:52:32 PM)
[2023/RJJP/000636] (3 of 3) [CW-16647/2022]
5. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case there is a delay on part of the Central Administrative Tribunal in deciding the Original Applications and in the meantime, petitioner has retired, he cannot be penalized.
6. It is not a matter of penalization or victimization of the petitioner, rather the question of relief that has to be granted to him in a given situation. The petitioner on the basis of the medical certificate wanted to seek voluntary retirement. The question of voluntary retirement does not arise at this stage when the petitioner has already retired from service.
7. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was medically examined on 31.05.2013 and not on 27.09.2013. The respondents have deliberately issued the post dated medical certificate to him.
8. The dispute as to whether the petitioner was medically examined on 31.05.2013 or 27.09.2013 or that the certificate was post dated are also not relevant when the petitioner has ceased to be in employment and has retired. The certificate was necessary only for the purposes of voluntary retirement which cannot be granted to him at this stage.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
N.K. GANDHI/LAKSHYA SHARMA /1 & 4
(Downloaded on 31/01/2023 at 11:52:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)