Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Palpandi vs M/O Railways on 10 January, 2024
| OA 1396/2016 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH OA/310/01396/2016 tH, Dated Nednes day the fe) day of January Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (3) & HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A) A.Palpandi, S/o. N. Analagan, No.2/148, Main Road, E.Pudupatti, Endapuli - Post, Periyakulam -Taluk, Theni District, Tamilnadu, .. Applicant By Advocate M/s.Ratio Legis Vs 1. Union of India Rep. by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Ghennai-600 003. 2. The Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage & Wagon Works, Southern Railway, Perambur, Chennai - 600023. 3. The Chie? Medical Director, Southern Railway, MMC Complex, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents By Advocates Mrs.Meera Gnanasekar 2 OA 1396/2016 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(3)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records related'to the impugned Order No. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/VoLXII Dated: 13.12.2014 (Annexure A-1, page-6) of the Chief Workshop Manager, the 2nd Respondent and to set aside the same and further to direct the Respondents to subject the applicant for re-medical examination as envisaged in Railway Board's circular No. 2014/H/5/8 (Policy), dated: 05.06.2014 (Annexure A-10, pages 21-23) and consider for appointment in Railways and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are as follows:
The Applicant has been selected for the post of Technician ITI/Welder by RRB/Chennai and allotted to Carriage & Wagon Workshop/Perambur of Southern Railway, vide Chairman/RRB/Chennai letters, dated, 15.05.2013 & 15.07.2013, and sent for medical examination for CEE ONE medical classification. The 2" Respondent, vide his letter, dated 30.10.2013, had advised that the applicant was found medically unfit Tech.1T at CW/PER and also advised him to submit appeal with a certificate from medical authority. The Applicant had requested for another medical examination with the medical certificates issued by the Government doctors, vide his representation, dated 24.07.2014. But the 2nd Respondent, the Chief Workshop Manager, rejected the request of the applicant for remedical 3 OA 1396/2016 examination, vide his Impugned order No. CPB/P/565/25%/SKA/Vol.XII, dated 13.12.2014. The rejection of the claim of the applicant by the 2nd Respondent is against the instructions issued by the Railway Board, vide Circular No. 2014/H/5/8 (Policy), dated 05.06.2014, wherein it is stated that, even without submission of appeal by the Applicant, a three-member medical team, with a spectalist, should examine the candidate. But in this case, even the appeal for remedical examination has been rejected by the 2nd Respondent. Specialist Doctor has certified that the applicant underwent treatment for crush injury to right hand for which amputation of right mid finger at TPX level, Ring finger at PIP tevel was done. Other fingers are normal and he is physically fit and able to do work with his right hand. Therefore, the present Original application is preferred before this" Tribunal to set aside the Impugned Order No. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/Vol.XII, dated 13.12.2014, of the Chief Workshop Manager, the 2nd Respondent and to direct the Respondents to get remedical examination conducted by a Medical Board and consider the applicant for appointment, 3, After notice, respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, and filed their reply and opposed the relief. The respondents contended that the applicant, Shri A.Palpandi, S/o Sri N.Anbazhagan, was selected for the post of Technician GrIll/Welder by the RRB/Chennai against Employment Notice No. 04/2012 and was allotted to Carriage and Wagon Works/Perambur/Southern Railway. This is a recruitment by the RRB/ Chennai, for the post of Technician GrIll/Welder which is a technical 4 OA 1296/2016 post and of Safety category. In response ito Jetter Na. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/VoLXII, dt. 24.08.2013, the applicant reported on 26.09.2013, for pre-recruitment formalities. After verification of documents/certificates, he was directed to the Railway Hospital/Perambur, on 27.09.2013, for Medical examination in CEE ONE Medical classification for the post of Technician Grill. He was declared medically unfit for CEE ONE Medical classification by the Senior Divisional Medical Officer/ Railway Hospital/Perambur, vide certificate No. 0036620, dt. 22.10.2013. Further, the -results of the medical examination were communicated to the applicant wherein he was advised that he could not be considered for appointment as Technician Gril at the Carriage and Wagon Works/Perambur, with provision for appeal within one month from the date of communication of the results of the first medical examination, vide letter No. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/VoI.XII, dt. 30.10.2013.
3.1 But the applicant submitted an appeal belatedly on 24.07.2014 against the first medical examination. His appeal was considered and forwarded to the next higher authority-Medical Director/Railway Hospital/Perambur, on 30.7.2014. The Medical Director/Railway Hospital advised through letter No.HQ/MD/Re-Me, dt. 09.09.2014, informed that the appeal for Re-Medical examination could not be entertained due to the following reasons:-
a} The candidate has been made unfit on 18.10.2013 due to the absence of left fore finger, middle finger and ring finger.
b) He is a candidate for appointment as App. Technician GrIIT/Welder. As 5 OA 1396/2016 this job profile requires well formed hands, the decision of the initial examiner to make the candidate unfit is correct keeping in view of individual's own safety as per IRMM Para 502 (1) and (6) (h)".
3.2 The above decision was communicated to the applicant through letter No. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/VoI.XII, dt. 13.12.2014. The applicant has not submitted any representation against the above disposal. Now, after a lapse of more than two years, the applicant has filed the present Original Application before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal! / Chennai, praying to set aside the orders communicated in letter No. CPB/P1/565/25%/SKA/VoI.XII, dt. 13.12.2014, and to direct the respondents to subject him to re-medical examination as per Railway Board's letter No. 2014/H/S/8 (Policy), dt. 05.06.2014, and consider him for appointment in Railways, 3.3. The respondents further submit that the guidelines issued, vide the Board's letter, dated 05.06.2014, have been superseded, vide Railway Board's letter No. 2014/H/5/8 Policy, dt. 31.12.2015. Para IV (A) has been incorporated as under:
"IV (A) lf the initial medica! authority or the Three-Member Board are of the view that the medical deficiency of the candidate is treatable, except for cause of unfitness like Diabetes, Hypertension defective colour perception, Disturbance in visual acuity the candidate should be declared as "TEMPORARY UNFIT"
and should be advised to get treated within a time frame not exceeding six months, with a written advice & endorsing a copy to the memo issuing authority. The written advice should also include that the candidate should report either to initial medical authority or to the three member Board specified (as the case may be ), after completion of treatment within the specified time 6 OA 1396/2016 frame. After completion of treatment, re-examination report should be put up to CMS/CMO/ACMS/MD I/C of Unit / Division / Sub-Division for final decision".
3.4 Thus, it could be seen that Medical deficiency of the candidate is treatable. Except for the cause of unfitness like Diabetes, Hypertension, defective colour perception, Disturbance in visual acuity, the candidate should be declared as "TEMPORARY UNFIT" and should be advised to get treated within a time frame net exceeding six months, with a written advice & endorsing a copy to the memo Issuing authority. Whereas the applicants case is not of temporary unfitness. In view of the Railway Board's letter, dated 31.12.2015, the applicant's case cannot be subjected to remedical examination.
3.5 The respondents further submit that the applicant was made unfit on 18.10.2013 due to the absence of left fore finger, middle finger and ring finger. He was a candidate for appointment as Apprentice Technician GrIli/Welder. As the job of welding requires well formed hands, the decision of the initial examiner to make him unfit is correct, keeping in view the applicant's own safety, as per para 502 (1) and (6) (h) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual Vol.- I. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA
4. Heard learned counsels, M/s.Ratio legis for the applicant and Mrs. Meera Gnanasekar for the respondents.
q OA 1396/20165. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the Board's direction, issued in B.Health Directorate that if a candidate has been found to be unfit on grounds of vision/colour vision/hyper tension/diabetes or any other condition/disease, the medical examiner will not issue any certificate and will put up his/her findings to the CMO/ MD/CMS/ACMS in charge of the Unit/Division/Sub- division/Production Unit. The candidate, without having to submit any appeal will then be immediately examined by a three-member standing medical team, consisting of (1) a specialist in the field; however, If the specialist is not available within the Unit/Division/Praduction Unit, a senior doctor would be nominated in place of a specialist (2) the medical officer who has conducted the first medical examination, and (3) the third being a senior medical officer, specially nominated by the CMO/CMS/MD/ACMS in charge. Therefore, the learned counsel! argued that the respondents may have to refer the applicant for re-medical examination as envisaged in Railway Board circular No.56/2014.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the said relief and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant since the applicant has been declared unfit on 18.10.2013 due to the absence of left fore finger, middle finger and ring finger, for appointment as Apprentice Technician Grade TII/Welder. As per the job profile, employees require well formed hands. Therefore, the decision by the initial examiner to make the candidate unfit is correct, keeping in view the individual's own safety, as per IRMM Paras 502(1) & 8 OA 1396/2016 6(h) and the said communication has been made to the applicant, vide jetter, dated 13.12.2014. Hence, the applicant's request for re-medical examination is not feasible. The applicant's appeal was also considered and rejected. The circular which is referred to by the applicant is not applicable in his case. He has been declared as unfit on 18.10.2013 due to the absence of the left fore finger, middle finger and ring finger and that is not a disease. Moreover, the said instructions issued in the year 2015 will only have prospective effect though the same is not applicable in the matter of the applicant. The job profile requires well formed hands. Tt is to be noted that the applicant is handicapped, as he is not having the left fore finger, middle finger and ring finger to perform the job profile which requires well formed hands. It is also to be noted that the circular issued by the Railway Board on 31.12.2015 is in respect of the diseases wherein the candidature should be declared as "Temporary unfit", but the case of the applicant does not fall under that category. Just referring the applicant to re-medical examination will not suffice the purpose. Hence we do not find any merit to interfere in the matter as no case is made out.
OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.