Kerala High Court
Union Of India Represented By vs P.Balan on 10 November, 2008
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32464 of 2008(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
Vs
1. P.BALAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :10/11/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.32464 OF 2008-S
-----------------------------------------
Dated 10th November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.354/2008. The said O.A was filed by the respondent herein, who has been held medically unfit to do any job with effect from 22.10.2007 by the duly constituted Medical Board. The applicant/respondent claimed the benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Since the said claim of the applicant was not accepted, he was constrained to file the above O.A. The respondents, who are the writ petitioners herein resisted the application, by filing a reply statement. Ext.P1 is the copy of the O.A and Ext.P2 is the copy of the reply statement. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the applicant was entitled to get the benefit of Section 47 of the WPC 32464/08 2 aforementioned Act. The writ petitioners found fault with the respondent, stating that he has not visited the Thiruvananthapuram office and he has not applied for leave. A person, who is found medically unfit to do any job, need not apply for leave. If he is physically disabled from moving around, he need not visit the station where he worked last, as desired by the writ petitioners. No such stipulations are engrafted in Section 47 of the aforementioned Act, which grants certain benefits to him. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly ordered to pay the salary and allowances due to the respondent from 22.10.2007. We find nothing wrong with the said direction of the C.A.T.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners again tried to canvass before us that the respondent has neither applied for leave, nor reported before the station where he worked last. The learned counsel is echoing the bureaucratic approach of the writ petitioners, which cannot stand scrutiny, in the light of Section 47 of the aforementioned Act. WPC 32464/08 3 Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/