Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Arun Kumar vs S E Railway on 13 November, 2018
• .
--
.■ . r
1 r.a. 10.2018 with o.a. 136.2016
■r
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
t'.y/
l.
K' ( No. R.A. 350/00010/2018 Date of order: 13.11.2018
(Arising out of O.A. 350/00136/2016)
(
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Arun Kumar,
Son of Kameshwar Prasad Yadav
Resident of Village - Babu Chak,
P.O. - Mohammadpur,
Via. - Khagaul,
District - Patna (Bihar),
Pin Code - 801105.
.. Applicant
Vs *
■v
•\
\
KotWta. /
U /
2. The\chietMedigalt6jrekto^
Central tj^pita,
South-Eastern FJailwayr'
Garden Rea&h,,7^
Kolkata.
;;
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Eastern Railway,
Adra Division, Adra.
4. The Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board,
Malda.
.. Respondents
For the Applicant Mr. M.P. Dixit, Counsel
For the Respondents Mr. A.K. Banerjee, Counsel
E
"U
/
•?*
- <' 2 r.a. 10.2018 with o.a. 136.2016
f
■t
ORDER
v. J / O R D E R ON REVIEW APPLICATION (Disposed of bv Circulation) r- • «)■ M- Per Dr. Nandita Chatteriee, Administrative Member:
' r' This Review Application has been filed by the applicant in O.A. No. 350/00136/2016 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for review of the order dated 11.5.2018 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. by which the O.A. was dismissed on merit.
2. The Registry had placed this Review Petition for circulation as per Rule 49 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. As a view was held that the Review Application merits a hearing, the application was placed for a preliminary hearing upon whic^\\^ ^iafe/>waS teard on 18.7.2018 and .O' $ 27.7.2018 respectively. (DcijT.7.20^ fesbondents^were directed to produce the original certificate pfjhe MemG5^par^^e^22.lSo)^ with a memo within ! C C one week's time. The respondents aowevsr>JJave not fu rnished the original O certificate of the Medical Boarchdl^^dtStfiJieZ-d^S-and hence, after the expiry of / the scheduled period, thdjnatt^isTaken upjoflor-ders'. ^ In the Review Application>the_ap|ilicannias sought for allowing of the Review Application and recall of the order dated 11.5.2018 on the following grounds:-
(a)That, the Tribunal had failed to appreciate and apply its mind towards the daily orders dated 24.11.2017 and 7.2.2018 whereby the respondents had been directed to bring the opinion of the Medical Board in original disclosing/showing the fact as to whether the Medical Board has considered the expert opinion of Mahavir Netralaya, Patna (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) wherein it was clearly been held that the applicant was held fit in A1 medical category.
:
3 r.a. 10.2018 with o.a. 136.2016 ■;
r . /
(b)That, as per the information received by the applicant, no such medical report dated 22.1.2015 has been produced in which the report of Mahavir Netralaya, Patna has been considered.
(c) The respondents have not issued any specific denial about the submission regarding Mahavir Netralaya report.
(d)That, although otherwise mentioned in the order sought to be reviewed, rejoinder had been filed by the applicant.
4.(a) This Tribunal, while passing its orders, had indeed examined the report of the Medical Board dated 22.1.2015 (copies of which had been subsequently furnished by. the respondents in response to the directions of the Tribunal in the O.A.). The Tribunal, in internal page 6, had also quoted the said report of the Medical Board as follows:-
6
"The results of medicaCboardjmorKc^sequeMo the'fxamination on 22.1.2015 was conveyed by the ChleMledic^l^g^^M^^Alra ontft9k2015 to the concerned respondent authority an3?eads'asTollws^^--1 C ]-u .
\ 0'
\ (ipUTH^TERftj lwMadra^ f
0FFI^ S?li^7DENT
v W<.. /
'No. MD/13/790 \\ ;DateaM9;3^015
x
Chief Personnel Officer,
S.E. Railway,
Adra
Sub: Medical Board report in favour of Sri Arun Kumar, S/o. Sri Kameshwar Prasad
Yadav, a candidate for Tr. ALP l Aye one Category.
Ref.: Your M. Memo No. - E(ELS/SI)Tr. ALP/RRB/MLDT/04/13 dt. 15.7.2013. Sri Arun Kumar, S/o Shri Kameshwar Prasad Yadav, a candidate for Tr, ALP in Aye one category was examined by the Medical Board at Central Hospital / GRC on 22.1.2015 to determine his fitness or otherwise.
. Opinion of the medical Board is furnished below for your information and necessary action - "Medical Board has carefully examined Shri Arun Kumar, 33 yrs., S/o Kameshar Prasad Yadav on date and opines that he is not fit in Aye One (A-1) medicl category as his naked eye vision is not as per standard of A-1, which has been accepted by GMD/GRC. As such, the previous certificate No. - 673369, dt.- 0.8./21.8.2013 will stand good.
Chief Medical Superintendent /Adra."
i.
•* 3!.-.-
4 r.a. 10.2018 with o.a. 136.2016
, '-.'S'
t ••
Hence, as far as the Railway Medical authorities of the respondents are concerned, the applicant has been considered unfit both during the initial medical examination as well as during the re- medical examination respectively,"
(b) It is also reiterated that no rejoinder was found available in the records when the Tribunal had taken up this matter for decision thereon.
5. The only outstanding issues that remain before us therefore are that:
(a) the original report of the Medical Board dated 22.1.2015 has not been produced before us till date and also; (b) the.fact that the respondents have not specifically and overtly recognised or denied the veracity of the certificate that the .
applicant had obtained from Mahavir Netralaya (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.).
6. Accordingly, in partial modification of the orders dated 11.5.2018 in O.A. No. 136 of 2018, we hereby direct Jhecebmpetentjespondent authority, who is v ^v' ^4, V the respondent No. 2 namel^f ChiefssMedieal Dir^§toXCentral Hospital, South
- NY X\'l//X - - \ Eastern Railway, Garden ReachfKolkataUVobtain confirmation as to whether the °r\ medical certificate tha't tfTe app'licanhh^dlobtamed fron£Mahavir Netralaya was ^ £| duly taken into consideration as per Ruie;s\gqyerhing theTieid while re-examining \ j the scope of medical fitness^pfsQ?6 applica^^Tt^esSaid/respondent No. 2 will convey his findings to thesapplicahtrthrpugh^a^easoned and speaking order ^-- ' - 'S'' within a period of 8 weeks from th£"date~of.rece1pt of this order. In the eventuality that such medical certificate from Mahavir Netralaya (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) was not taken into account, respondent No. 2 will proceed to take necessary actions on the same as per law and convey the respondents' decisions to the applicant within the same time period, namely, eight weeks from the^date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The Review Application is disposed of accordingly with the abovenoted directions.
--
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member SP