Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt. Sonu Devi Wife Of Shri Sanjay Kumar ... vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 12 September, 2013
(Reserved)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING : BILASPUR
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2012
(W.P.No.1463/2004)
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2013
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt. Sonu Devi wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Aged 20 years, R/o Baikunthdham, Camp-2,
Shardapara, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri H.B.Agrawal)
V e r s u s
1. Steel Authority of India Limited,
Through Managing Director,
Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai.
2. Assistant Personnel Officer,
Rail and Structural Mill,
Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Gautam Bhaduri)
(Date of reserving the order: 20.08.2013)
O R D E R
By Dhirendra Mishra, JM.-
Initially the applicant had filed Writ Petition No.1463 of 2004, before the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh, while her husband was alive, on 24.5.2004 and prayed for setting aside her husbands voluntary retirement application dated 16.2.2004 and he be declared medically unfit for employment and the petitioner be kept in employment in his place. During pendency of the said petition, the applicants husband died on 27.4.2008, (Annexure P-8 with rejoinder) and thereafter the applicant substituted relief clause 1 and claimed the relief of quashment of order (Annexure R-1) of voluntary retirement of applicants husband and also prayed for monthly basic and dearness allowance, as per employees family benefit scheme filed as Annexure P-7.
2. Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that her husband was suffering from some mental sickness since 1995 and he was undergoing treatment under the Mental Health Hospital of Bhilai Steel Plant, which is evident from documents filed by the applicant as Annexures P-1 and P-2. He was also admitted in Ranchi Mental Hospital from 7.4.2004 however, on the basis of the application of the husband of the applicant submitted on 16.2.2004 the respondents permitted him to voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 31.3.2004 vide order dated 05.04.2004 (Annexure R-1). Since the husband of the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, he was not capable of taking a conscious decision of taking voluntary retirement and the respondents ought not to have entertained and accepted his application for voluntary retirement. The doctors treating the applicant should have declared her husband medically unfit and should have recommended the applicant for employment in his place. However, the respondents have permitted the applicants husband to voluntarily retire after entertaining and acting upon his application. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the applicants husband died in the year 2008. From perusal of the documents of Annexures P-3 to P-5, it would be evident that the applicant had submitted applications to the respondents to reject her husbands application for voluntary retirement and to give her appointment in place of her husband.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicants husband Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh opted for voluntary retirement and he was permitted to retire voluntarily from service w.e.f. 31.3.2004 (Annexure R-1). At the time of voluntary retirement he was working as Operator (DRL) in Dalli Mechanical Mines. The management was never informed that Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh was suffering from any mental sickness and that he was in mentally disordered condition at the time of submitting application for voluntary retirement. From perusal of his medical examination report dated 07.12.2001, available in his personal record, it appears that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was advised regular medical treatment. However, he was never declared medically unfit for the job, he was performing. He submitted application for voluntary retirement on 28.02.2004 (Annexure R-3). Since he was never declared medically unfit by the Medical Board at any point of time due to paranoid schizophrenia, and he was regularly attending his duties, for the past three years, as would be evident from his application for voluntary retirement of Annexure R-3, and he was getting his regular salary for the aforesaid period, his application for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was permitted to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31.3.2004 as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for brevity VRS). Under the VRS employees are extended benefit package, who opt for voluntary retirement. The husband of the applicant was also paid an amount of Rs.1,81,830/- as voluntary retirement benefit. Once an employees request for voluntary retirement is accepted and he is permitted to retire as such, he cannot be permitted to withdraw the same, and the employee/officers who are voluntarily retired are also entitled to free medical facilities from companys hospital. Since the husband of the applicant was never referred by the treating medical officer to the Disability Medical Board of the company and he was attending his duties satisfactorily and regularly the question of declaring him medically unfit to discharge his duties does not arise and the acceptance of applicant husbands application for voluntary retirement is wholly legal and valid. The instances cited by the applicant of other officers such as Ashwani Kumar Kannoje is concerned, his case is entirely on different footing as he was declared permanently unfit by the Medical Disability Board and his services were terminated upon fulfilling the terms and conditions of the employees welfare benefit scheme. Similarly, the applications of Annexures P-3 to P-6 filed by the applicant could not be acted upon as her husband was in service and he was discharging his duties satisfactorily and application for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn only by the employee himself.
4. The issues whether a person is mentally ill or not or whether a person who is mentally ill is incapable of caring himself and/or incapable of managing his properties are the issues which can be decided by the competent District Court after inquisition as per provisions in the Mental Health Act,1987. Since the applicant was regularly attending and discharging his duties to the satisfaction of authorities and he was never referred by his treating doctors to Disability Medical Board, the question of the applicants husband being declared as medically unfit did not arise.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
6. From the material available on record, particularly the documents of Annexure P-1 and P-2 as also the document of Annexure R-2, it appears that the applicants husband Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh was undergoing treatment in a psychiatric department of Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital from 1995 and at times he was admitted also for the purposes of treatment in the psychiatric department. At times he did not attend duties due to his mental sickness. He was declared unfit for duty in April, 1998 for the period of two months. However, he was later on declared fit to join duties on 4.6.1998. From document of Annexure R-2, we find that the applicant was examined under the Employee Wellness Programme and he was declared suffering from illness of paranoid schizophrenia, right ear mild high frequency hearing loss on 07.12.2001 and he was advised to take regular treatment, to take balance diet and to use Ear plug while working in noisy area. However, there is nothing on record to show that the treating doctors had ever referred the applicant to Medical Disability Board of the Bhilai Steel Plant. On the contrary, the contention of the respondents that the employee regularly attended his duties for the last three years from 2001 to 2004 till he opted for voluntary retirement and discharged his duties satisfactorily is established from the document of Annexure R-3 by which the applicants husband himself applied for voluntary retirement under VRS 2003-2004 and which shows that the attendance of the applicants husband in duty was 291, 276, 229 and 18 days respectively for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and up to 10.2.2004 and he had 70 days earned leave, 73 days HPL and seven days casual leave to his credit at the time he opted for voluntary retirement.
7. It is true that the applicant had submitted applications vide Annexures P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6 and requested the respondents to reject her husbands application for voluntary retirement, and also requested for personal hearing. The applicant had cited instances to demonstrate that her husband was suffering from serious mental sickness and his conduct was wholly irrational, and, therefore she had requested for granting her compassionate appointment in his place, as she had the responsibility of two minor children aged 4= and 3= years respectively. However, the respondents in their reply have averred that the above applications of the applicant could not be acted upon as her husband was in service and satisfactorily discharging his duties. Withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement, if any, could be acted upon only if it was made by the employee concerned i.e. husband of the applicant. Since her husband was never referred to, nor declared unfit by the Disability Medial Board at any point of time, and he was discharging his duties satisfactorily and he was also given promotion to higher grade S-5 just a year before his voluntary retirement and was attending his duties regularly, the question of acting upon the application of the applicant herein to reject her husbands application for voluntary retirement did not arise.
8. The controversy in this Original Application is with regard to the fact whether the applicants husband was in a stable and fit mental condition when he submitted his application for voluntary retirement (Annexure R-3) to the General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, under the VRS, 2003-2004. Under the VRS 2003-2004 any employee of the SAIL, who has completed 10 years of service or attained the age of 40 years, was eligible to take voluntary retirement and on acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement he was entitled for the benefits as detailed in the scheme filed as Annexure R-4.
9. Indisputably, the husband of the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was undergoing treatment for this ailment since long. From the evidence available on record and not controverted by the respondents it is established that the employee suffered schizophrenic attack in the intermittent period and was declared unfit for duty by the treating doctors at times & after treatment he was declared fit.
10. The moot question for our consideration is whether at the time of submitting application for voluntary retirement under VRS 2003-2004, the applicant was in a fit mental state or not. The applicant through her applications P-3 to P-6 had apprised the authorities of the respondents that her husband is behaving abnormally and he is not in a position to take the important decision of voluntary retirement from service and, therefore, his application should be rejected, however, the respondents did not act upon the request of the applicant as at the relevant time the husband of the applicant was attending and discharging his duties satisfactorily and he never applied for withdrawal of voluntary retirement.
11. This Transferred Application has been originally filed before the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 24.5.2004, when Sanjay Kumar Singh, the husband of the applicant was alive. However, the applicant has not filed this petition as a next friend, nor S.K.Singh has been arrayed as respondent in the Transferred Application. The disputed fact whether the husband of the applicant was suffering from mental sickness at the relevant time to such an extent that he was unable to take a conscientious and considered decision with respect to the important aspect in his service career of taking voluntary retirement could be ascertained either by examining him personally at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2004 or by referring him to some psychiatrist or Disability Medical Board. However, unfortunately no attempt has been made by the applicant at that juncture or till her husband was alive. The above disputed fact cannot now be adjudicated at this stage after his death and it is now impossible to decide as to whether the version of the applicant or that of the respondent with regard to mental status of the applicants husband is correct, in the absence of any medical certificate to that effect by the competent psychiatrist/ Disability Medical Board.
12. We take note of the fact that the respondents in their reply have averred that only an year ago applicants husband was granted promotion and that at the relevant time also he was attending and discharging his duties satisfactorily. We also find substance in the argument of the respondents that the instant Original Application in the present form at the behest of the applicant could not have been entertained in the absence of any authoritative decisions by the competent District Court that the applicants husband was mentally ill to such an extent that he was incapable of taking care of himself and of managing his affairs as provided under Section 51 of the Mental Health Act, 1987.
13. Thus, in view of the aforementioned discussions we are unable to grant any relief to the applicant sought for in this Transferred Application. Accordingly, the Transferred Application is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
rkv
7
Sub: VRS TA 18/2012
Page 7 of 7