Delhi District Court
Devendra Gupta vs Dr. Sanjeev Sinha Ors on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ 6745/16
CNR No. DLST010008122015
S.I. Devendra Gupta
S/o Dr. R.N. Gupta
107/9, Kishangarh,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110070. .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Dr. Sanjeev Sinha
Professor, Department of Medicine
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
2. Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj,
Professor & Head, Department of Forensic Medicine,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
3. Dr. Amlesh Seth,
Professor, Department of Urology,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 1 of 26
4. Dr. Nitish Naik,
Professor, Department of Cardiology,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
5. Dr. C.S. Yadav,
Professor, Department of Orthopaedics,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
6. Dr. Rakesh Kumar,
Professor, Department of ENT,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
7. Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal
Professor, Department of Surgery,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
8. Dr. Anant Mohan
Addl. Professor, Department of Pulmonary Medicine,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
9. Dr. Ashraf Ganaie,
Asstt. Professor, Department of Endocrinology,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 2 of 26
10. Dr. Vijaydep Sidharth,
Department of Hospital Administration,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
11. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Through its Director,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
12. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Through its Medical Superintendent,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
13. Medical Council of India,
Through its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi 110 077.
(deleted vide order dated 25.07.2018)
14. Delhi Police,
Through the Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Communication),
5, Rajpur Road,
Delhi. .....DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 13.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 3 of 26
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking declaration that the report dated 24.08.2013 of defendant no.1 to 10 is illegal, null and void being contrary to medical record of the plaintiff and also in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be acted upon in any manner. Further, the plaintiff has prayed for declaring that the plaintiff is not permanently and medically fit to continue in service with defendant no. 14 on account of his ill health and medical report dated 04.06.2011 of AIIMS, New Delhi, to pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant no. 13 to hold enquiry and take action against the defendant no. 1 to 10 for submitting wrong and false report dated 24.08.2013, to pass decree of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff and against defendants no. 1 to 10 and to award the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER THE PLAINT:
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he is an old patient suffering from various ailment/disease i.e. Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Coronary Artery Disease, Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, Varicose Veins, Dyslipidemia, Lumbar Disc Bulge, Benign Hypertrohpy of Prostrate and Morbid Obesity and was undergoing treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the aforesaid ailment/disease for last 15 years or CS No.6745/2016 Page 4 of 26 more.
3. It is averred that on 17.6.2010, the Plaintiff was treated at AIIMS in M.O.P.D. Unit I and was advised medicines. Thereafter, on 6.12.2010, the Plaintiff was admitted at AIIMS, New Delhi for carrying of Polysomnography Test on him and the report provided to Plaintiff mentions under the heading Impression "Severe OSA present (AHI-61.75/hr), Obsesity (BMI-31.3. kg/m2), Habitual Snorer, Hypertensive & Diabetic, CPAP = 9 cmH20". It was the recommendations of Prof. S.K. Sharma, Department of Medicine that to change the lifestyle including weight reduction, avoid supine posture during sleep, and use of CPAP machine with 9 cm H20 pressure.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff was examined on 27.12.2010 in M.O.P.D- Unit 1 at AIIMS for OSA and other ailments was advised host of medicines and was also advised to be admitted under Department of Medicine in Private Ward (Old). Plaintiff admitted from 5.1.2011 to 14.1.2011 at AIIMS, New Delhi with the advice of use of CPAP machine, avoid prolonged standing apart from other advice rendered. Plaintiff was examined by Defendant No. 1, 3 and 5 during the aforesaid period and at the time of discharge, he was advised rest for 4 weeks apart from use of CPAP Machine in night with Foot end elevated, wearing of Compression Stockings, avoid long driving CS No.6745/2016 Page 5 of 26 alone, avoid prolonged standing and host of medicines.
5. It is further averred that on 7.2.2011, Plaintiff was examined in Sleep Related Breathing Disorders Clinic and was advised rest from work till 21.2.2011. He was medicines for three months. The Plaintiff attended the clinic on 21.2.2011 and was again advised medical rest for two weeks from 21.2.2011. The attending Doctor wrote that Plaintiff required further evaluation. A new medicine was prescribed to him apart from earlier medicine. On 7.3.2011, Plaintiff followed up his treatment in Sleep Related Breathing Disorders Clinic and was advised 4 weeks rest. On 29.3.2011, the Plaintiff was examined in the MOPD Unit-II for treatment of urine and stone. On 2.4.2011, the Plaintiff was examined in Emergency Medicine, AIIMS with high BP -190/80 and uncontrolled HT. He was advised bed rest.
6. It is further averred that on 4.4.2011, the Plaintiff was again examined in Sleep Related Breathing Disorders Clinic at AIIMS, New Delhi and he was advised 4 weeks rest. On 2.5.2011, the Plaintiff was examined by the Defendant No. 1 and was advised to avoid night duties/light duty be assigned, use of CPAP machine apart from host of taking different medicines. The Defendant No. l also advised rest for two weeks. On 14.5.2011, the Plaintiff was examined in the Department of Orthopaedics at AIIMS and was advised treatment apart from rest for 1 week.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 6 of 267. It is further averred that on 4.6.2011, a Senior Resident Doctor in Medicine Department, AIIMS, New Delhi, examined Plaintiff and opined that in view of multiple comorbidity & varicose veins and severe OSA requiring CPAP and urgency and frequency of urine, the Plaintiff was not fit for his duties due to long process of these chronic non-curable disease. He was advised bed rest for 7 days. On 11.6.2011, Plaintiff again attended the clinic and he was advised 3 days rest. On 13.6.2011, the Plaintiff was again treated at Sleep Related Breathing Disorders clinic and he was advised medicines mentioned therein for 6 months, use of CPAP every night.
8. It is further averred that on 25.6.2011, the Plaintiff attended MOPD Unit-III and was advised rest for three months. On 11.1.2012, the Plaintiff was treated at MOPD Unit-III AIIMS for the said ailments and was advised treatment with use of night stockings (compression), CPAP Daily, bed rest for 4 weeks till sleep /BPH Optimizes. On 27.2.2012, the Plaintiff was treated at Sleep Related Disorders Clinic at AIIMS and was referred to Endo OPD apart from taking of medicines. On 20.4.2012, Polysomnography Test was carried out on Plaintiff and it was noted that Plaintiff was having Severe OSA, CPAP titration 12 cm H2O (split night duty); Habitual snorer, Patient is hypertensive and diabetic.
9. It is further averred that on 18.9.2012 Plaintiff was CS No.6745/2016 Page 7 of 26 examined in medicine Unit-II and was advised multiple tests and was suffering from non-curable disease, was advised bed rest althroughout, was advised host of medicines, was advised treatment in different OPD/Department and underwent depression. It is submitted that considering the fact that Plaintiff has a family to look after consisting of his wife and three children and in order to protect their future, he sought any type of VRS from Delhi Police where he was working.
10. It is further averred that the Defendant No. 13 in order to overcome the medical report and opinion given by Defendant No. 1, 3 and 5 and other Doctors, the Office of Defendant No. 13 with a malafide intention sent Plaintiff to various hospitals. The Office of Defendant No.13 headed by Shri Naved Mumtaz, DCP also doubted the genuineness of the reports, and assistance was sought from Director, AIIMS and Medical Superintendent, AIIMS to verify from as to whether Plaintiff was admitted for treatment, continued treatment and whether the advice given therein was correct or not. The Defendant No. 1 informed the Medical Superintendent vide his letter dated 19.7.2011 that Plaintiff was admitted in medicine unit-1 from 5.1.2011 to 14.1.2011 and the advice given therein was correct. The defendant no. 1 also stated that plaintiff visited his OPD on 02.05.2011 and was advised medical rest.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 8 of 2611. It is further averred that the attending Doctor of Department of Medicine, New Delhi vide his Letter dated 22.7.2011 also reiterated his report of 4.6.2011. However, the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Communication) had sought medical examination of Plaintiff through the Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, New Delhi. The Chairman of the Medical Board, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, New Delhi informed the Office of Defendant No.1 vide letter dated 23.11.2011 that there is no Pulmonologist in their hospital, hence, the patient may be referred to L.N.J.P. Hospital. Vide letter dated 24.2.2012 the Office of Defendant No. 14 asked the Medical Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi to constitute medical board to examine Plaintiff as to whether he is completely permanent unfit for further service in Delhi Police Department. Vide letter dated 21.3.2012, the Chairperson, Medical Board, L.N.J.P. Hospital, New Delhi informed that Plaintiff should be examined by medical board at AIIMS itself.
12. It is further averred that on 29.3.2012, a request was made by the Office of Defendant No. 14 requesting AIIMS for constitution of medical board to examine the Plaintiff. Vide Order dated 4.4.2012, the Administrative Officer (H.L.) constituted a Medical Board consisting of Defendant No. 1 as Chairperson, Defendant No. 7 and Dr. Shradha Sharma, Department of CS No.6745/2016 Page 9 of 26 Hospital Administration as other Members of the Board. Vide Meeting dated 2.5.2012 of the Medical Board of AIIMS it was noted that Plaintiff had appeared before the Board and advised necessary investigations. The Defendant No.1 being the Chairperson of the Board desired to cooperate with other Doctors i.e. Defendant No. 3 to 6 as Members of the Board in view of various ailments of the Plaintiff.
13. It is further averred that on 7.6.2012 an order was passed by the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS re-constituting the Medical Board with the Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 8 and Dr. Jitender Mehta, Department of Hospital Administration as members of the Board. In Meeting of the Medical Board dated 26.6.2012, it was noted that Plaintiff was suffering from various multiple ailments, therefore, the Chairperson i.e. Defendant No. 1 had desired to co-opt few more members i.e. Defendant No. 2 to 7 and Dr. Jitender Mehta. The Meeting noted that Plaintiff should appear on 19.7.2012 with all relevant medical records in original.
14. It is further averred that on 19.7.2012 Plaintiff went to A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi with the papers for his examination but he had to admit in Department of Emergency Medicine, AIIMS and on discharge from the Department of Emergency Medicine, he appeared before the Medical Board but he was told that the Board was discharged since he had arrived late. The Plaintiff tried to CS No.6745/2016 Page 10 of 26 explain that he was admitted in Department of Emergency at AIIMS, but to no avail. The Office of Defendant No.14 requested AIIMS to constitute another Medical Board which was declined.
15. It is further averred that the Office of Defendant No.1 vide letter dated 17.1.2013 asked the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital to constitute a Medical Board for examining the Plaintiff. The CMO, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi informed the Office of Defendant No.1 that they should approach Civil Surgeon, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The Addl. Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi informed the Office of Defendant No. 14 to send Plaintiff on 2.5.2013 for the purpose of medical examination. The Medical Board opined that as Plaintiff was under treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi he should be examined there only.
16. It is further averred that vide letter dated 13.6.2013 the Office of Defendant No.14 asked A.I.I.M.S. to constitute another Medical Board for examining the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was asked to appear before the Board at AIIMS with all his medical reports on 1.8.2013. However, Plaintiff was asked to deposit money for admission in the hospital which Plaintiff declined stating that he was asked by the Department to report before the Board for medical examination, which he did. The Plaintiff stated that the Medical Board should ask the Department for deposit of CS No.6745/2016 Page 11 of 26 money. On this Plaintiff was turned away and was asked to report later on.
17. It is alleged that later on, a false plea was taken by the Medical Board as well as by the Department that no bed was available. The Department knew that Plaintiff was not being paid any salary and with a view to harass him, he was asked to deposit money with AIIMS.
18. It is averred that on 6.8.2013, the Plaintiff appeared before the Board on 6.8.2013 and he remained in the hospital till 14.8.2013 for his examination though his admission for these 8 days. During the stay of 8 days, the Plaintiff's mother came to be admitted in Agra for heart ailment and asthma as she was 83 years old. On 9.8.2013, the Plaintiff came to know about the critical condition of his mother and pleaded for discharge due to emergent situation having arisen with his mother. However, the repeated request of Plaintiff were not answered. The Plaintiff got himself discharged on his request on 14.8.2013, on account of medical condition of his parents, more particularly, his mother.
19. It is averred that on 18.9.2013, the Plaintiff was served with letter(s) dated 24.8.2013 and 6.9.2013 by the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Communication) which were sent by AIIMS forwarding two page report which mentioned that CS No.6745/2016 Page 12 of 26 the Medical Board sat on 23.8.2013 and considered the plaintiff's case.
20. It is averred that the report dated 24.08.2013 prepared by defendant no. 1 to 10 is against medical record and there is no application of mind by defendant no. 1 to 10 while submitting the impugned report dated 24.08.20213, hence the same is liable to be declared as null and void. The medical opinion in report dated 04.06.2011 clearly stated that the plaintiff was not fit for duties and once the report dated 04.06.2011 stood confirmed by the doctor in his letter addressed to the Medical Superintendent vide letter dated 22.07.2011.
21. It is further averred that the report dated 24.08.2013 mentions of various ailments plaintiff is suffering from,more particularly, OSA. However, no treatment for OSA or any other ailment was mentioned to the plaintiff. The report also does not mention that as to how long the treatment has to continue, the medicines to be taken for cure of the ailments, whether plaintiff has to come for checkup for ailments, when he has to come up for check up and in which department has to go for checkup etc. Hence, it is prayed that the report dated 24.08.2013 has inherent contradictions and is liable to be rejected.
22. It is further averred that on 18.04.2014 and 28.04.2014, CS No.6745/2016 Page 13 of 26 legal notice was sent on behalf of plaintiff on defendant no. 14 and defendant no. 1 to 12 to rectify the report dated 24.08.2013. The defendant no. 13 was also asked to take action against defendant no. 1 to 10 for submitting false report.
23. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement.
24. The Defendant no. 1 to 12 filed their joint Written Statements on 28.11.2015 taking objection that suit is barred by limitation; suit is not maintainable in law on the ground of misjoinder and non joinder of the parties; the plaintiff has not filed any medical evidence to support his case that he is unfit to resume his normal duties as Sub Inspector of Delhi police, the suit is based on assumptions and presumptions and is liable to be dismissed; the medical report dated 24.08.2013 prepared by the Medical Board consisting of 10 doctors of AIIMS has no reason to disbelieve and has not been prepared with prejudice mind and that the present suit is not maintainable in law due to non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section80 of the CPC.
25. On merits, it is submitted that the medical report dated 24.08.2013 prepared by Medical Board of 10 expert doctors of AIIMS is correct and valid. The diseases/ailments mentioned therein do not completely and permanently incapacitate the plaintiff for his further service in Delhi police and that the disease CS No.6745/2016 Page 14 of 26 mentioned by the plaintiff are curable. The plaintiff was advised for some bed rest for recovery of his illness and some medicines were prescribed. The plaintiff was rightly asked to deposit the required charge for holding the medical board for his examination which he declined stating that the required money would be deposited by the police department to which he belongs.
26. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was admitted and he was kept in General Ward room which was meant for special care of patient. The medical prescription slip was signed by Senior Resident of MOPD Unit III, AIIMS which talks about bed rest for 7 days only and in the OPD card of the patient, there is no mention that the plaintiff was not fit for his duty for ever.
27. It is further submitted that on 24.08.2013, a medical board was constituted at AIIMS for medical examination under Rule 38 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of the plaintiff. The said medical board after considering the physical condition of the plaintiff unanimously opined that the medical condition of the patient does not confirm that the patient was completely and permanently in-capacities for future service in Delhi police. The plaintiff has challenged the said report after the lapse of more than two years and two months. The report dated 24.08.2013 signed by the 10 eminent doctors of the AIIMS are final and conclusive and it prevailed upon all the previous medical advice/suggestions CS No.6745/2016 Page 15 of 26 mentioned in any other OPD card or likewise. The medical board is not required to mention the details of visit of the patient, his diagnosis report,and entries on his OPD card by the Junior Doctors like Junior resident and Senior Resident, medical advices given from time to time for change of the medicines and other related tests.
28. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not made any complaint to the higher authority of the AIIMS or even higher authority of the police regarding the said alleged harassment by the doctors (defendant no. 1 to 10) of the AIIMS. Hence, it is prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary costs.
29. Defendant no. 13 has filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. Vide order dated 25.07.2018, the name of the defendant no. 13 was deleted from the array of parties.
30. Defendant no. 14 has filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is stated that the plaintiff has acted in irresponsible, indiscipline and unbecoming of a Government servant manner. The regular sick CS No.6745/2016 Page 16 of 26 leave taken by the plaintiff and the unauthorized absence of the plaintiff on the grounds of illness, the answering defendant were well within their rights to refer the case for board exmaination as per service rules.
31. It is further stated that AIIMS hospital sent the Medical Board report dated 24.08.2013 on 06.09.2013 mentioning therein that on detailed examination and investigation by the Medical Board, he was diagnosed to have Type-II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Coronary Artery Disease, Obstructive Sleep Apnoea,Varicose Veins, Dyslipidemia, Lumbar Disc. Bulge, Benign Hypertrophy of Prostrate and Morbid Obesity.
32. Replication was filed to the Written Statements. Contrary averments were denied as false and incorrect and the stand pleaded in the plaint was reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.
33. Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of defendant no. 1 to 12 and defendant no. 14 were filed on behalf of plaintiff on 21.12.2018. The defendants no. 1 and 12 filed the affidavit of admission/denial of documents on 11.03.2019. On the basis of pleadings, on 23.05.2019, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD1 to 12.
2. Whether the suit is barred due to non-compliance of CS No.6745/2016 Page 17 of 26 Section 80 of the CPC? OPD 1 to 12.
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD1 to 12.
4. Whether the suit suffers from mis-joinder of the parties?If so, its effect? OPD1 to 12.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? If so, to what extend?OPP.
7. Relief.
34. On 12.08.2024, PW-1 Sh. SI Devendra Gupta had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
i. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 17.06.2010 Ex.PW1/1;
ii. True copy of OPD treatment Card dated 27.12.2010 Ex.PW1/2;
iii. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 07.02.2011 Ex.PW1/3;
iv. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 07.03.2011 Ex.PW1/4;
v. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 29.03.2011 Ex.PW1/5;
vi. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 02.05.2011 CS No.6745/2016 Page 18 of 26 Ex.PW1/6, vii. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 14.05.2011 Ex.PW1/7, viii. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 04.06.2011 Ex.PW1/8, ix. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 13.06.2011 Ex.PW1/9;
x. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 11.01.2012 Ex.PW1/10, xi. True copy of OPD treatment card dated 27.02.2012 Ex.PW1/11, xii. Copy of letter dated 29.03.2022 Mark A; xiii. Copy of letter dated 23.04.2012 Mark B, xiv. Copy of letter dated 02.05.2012 of AIIMS Mark C; xv. Copy of letter dated 07.06.2012 of AIIMS Mark D; xvi. Copy of letter dated 26.04.2012 Mark E; xvii. Copy of report dated 06.09.2013 Mark F xviii. Legal notice dated 28.04.2012 Ex.PW1/18.
35. PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no. 1 to 12 at length. Opportunity was given to the defendant no. 14 to cross examine the witness but he failed to do so, hence, the right to cross examine the plaintiff by defendant no. 14 was closed vide order dated 26.09.2024. PW-1 was thereafter discharged and PE stood closed vide separate statement of plaintiff on CS No.6745/2016 Page 19 of 26 26.09.2024.
36. Defendants have not led any defence evidence and accordingly, DE stood closed vide order dated 14.11.2024.
37. I have heard final arguments and have carefully gone through the entire material on record.
38. My issue-wise findings are as under.
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD1 to 12.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the suit is barred due to non-compliance of Section 80 of the CPC? OPD 1 to 12.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD1 to 12.
ISSUE NO. 4Whether the suit suffers from mis-joinder of the parties?If so, its effect? OPD1 to 12.
39. All these issues no.1 to 4 are taken up together. Onus to prove these issues was upon defendants no. 1 to 12. The defendants no. 1 to 12 have failed to lead any evidence to prove these issues. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the defendant no. 1 to 12.
ISSUE NO. 5Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration CS No.6745/2016 Page 20 of 26 and mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
40. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has relied upon the the OPD cards Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 to show that he was treated in different hospitals from time to time. During cross- examination of PW-1 by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no. 1 to 12, PW-1 deposed that on 04.06.2011, when he was being treated at AIIMS Hospital by a senior resident doctor, he was informed that on account of his various ailments, he was not fit enough to continue in service with Delhi Police and the senior resident doctor who had treated him was from the same unit as that of defendant no. 1. PW-1 further deposed in cross examination that the basis of his claim seeking Rs. 10 lakh was on the fact that once on 04.06.2011, he was declared as unfit to continue in service on account of non curable diseases, he was made to run from 2011 till 2013 and the report dated 24.08.2013 was a self contradictory report and it had damaged his service career.
41. It is case of the plaintiff that he was suffering from various ailments for which he was treated at AIIMS and as per Ex.PW1/8 dated 04.06.2011, it was opined that the plaintiff was not fit for his duties due to long process of chronic non curable disease and on the basis of the said opinion, the CS No.6745/2016 Page 21 of 26 plaintiff has prayed for declaring the report dated 24.08.2013 of defendant no. 1 to 10 as illegal, null and void, contrary to medical report. The plaintiff has also prayed for declaration that the plaintiff was not permanently and medically fit to continue in service with defendant no. 14 on account of his health. The plaintiff has failed to examine the concerned senior resident doctor in Medicine Department, AIIMS, New Delhi who was treating the plaintiff and gave opinion Ex.PW1/8 being relied upon by the plaintiff or any other doctor to substantiate his version.
42. It is defence of the defendant that on 24.08.2013, a medical board was constituted at AIIMS for medical examination under Rule 38 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of the plaintiff. It is relevant to reproduced the Rule 38 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The same is reproduced as under:
38. Invalid pension (1) Invalid pension may be granted if a Government servant retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service.
(2) A Government servant applying for an invalid pension shall submit a medical certificate of incapacity from the following medical authority, namely :-
(a) a Medical Board in the case of a Gazetted Government servant and of a non-gazetted Government servant whose pay, as defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules, exceeds 3 [Two thousand and two hundred rupees] per CS No.6745/2016 Page 22 of 26 mensem ;
(b) Civil Surgeon or a District Medical Officer or Medical Officer of equivalent status in other cases.
NOTE 1. - 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 the intention of the applicant to appear before the medical authority. The medical authority 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 age of the applicant. If a service book is being maintained for the applicant, the age recorded therein should be reported.
NOTE 2. - A lady doctor shall be included as a member of the Medical Board when a woman candidate is to be examined.
(3) The form of the Medical Certificate to be granted by the medical authority specified in sub-rule (2) shall be as in Form 23.
(4) Where the medical authority referred to in sub-rule (2) has declared a Government servant fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing, he should, provided he is willing to be so employed, be employed on lower post and if there be no means of employing him even on a lower post, he may be admitted to invalid pension.
Footnote : 2. Substituted by G.I., M.F., Notification No. F. 19 (3)-E. V (A)/74, dated the 29th January, 1976.
3. Substituted vide G.I., Dept. of P. & P.W., Notification No. 2/18/87-P. & P.W. (PIC), dated the 20th July, 1988. Published as S.O. No. 2388 in the Gazette of India, dated the 6th August, 1988.
43. Medical boards are constituted based on specific legal framework, departmental guidelines and rules, and members of the Board possess specified qualification and expertise in their fields for conducting examinations. The CS No.6745/2016 Page 23 of 26 plaintiff has not challenged the report dated 24.08.2013 before any other competent authority. It is not the case of the plaintiff that medical board was not constituted as per relevant established law and rules. The said medical board has considered and deliberated the medical history of the patient, medical treatment and all the previous reports/medical advice, tests conducted on the plaintiff before coming to the conclusion that he is not unfit for perform his duties in Delhi police. Further, this court finds force in the arguments of Ld counsel for defendants that on the strength of an OPD prescription dated 04.06.2011 by a non specialist resident doctor, the recommendations of an expert medical board dated 24.08.2013 consisting of 10 expert specialist doctors of various fields cannot be quashed, as prayed by plaintiff in the plaint.
44. Further it is contended by Ld counsel for the defendants no.1 to 12 that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, because as per section 28 of the Central Administrative Act, 1985, there is a specific bar on any Court except the Hon'ble Supreme Court entertaining service matters except the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further contended that the plaintiff was serving with Delhi Police, which is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs CS No.6745/2016 Page 24 of 26 through the Lt Governor, Delhi, as such the Central Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction on service disputes, including disputes pertaining to Central Civil Services Pensions Rules 1972 for employees working under the Central Government of under Union of Territory of Delhi, and section 14 of the CAT confers jurisdiction, powers and authority over the Central Administrative Tribunal.
45. Having gone through the provisions of section 14 and 28 of the Central Administrative Act, 1985 as relied upon by Ld counsel for defendants no.1 to 12, this Court finds force in the contentions of Ld counsel for the defendants no.1 to 12 and is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff was to approach Central Administrative Tribunal being Delhi Police personnel instead of civil Court.
46. In view of above discussion, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction, as prayed for, and hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? If so, to what extend?OPP.
47. In view of the findings on issue no. 5 hereinabove, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
CS No.6745/2016 Page 25 of 26Relief
48. In view of my above discussions on issue no. 1 to 6, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 30.07.2025.
(Sunil Beniwal)
Sunil
Digitally
signed by
Sunil beniwal District Judge-06(South),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Date:
beniwal 2025.07.31
09:05:43
+0530
CS No.6745/2016 Page 26 of 26