Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manoj Kumar Jatia S/O Shri Om Prakash vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14891/2020
Manoj Kumar Jatia S/o Shri Om Prakash, aged around 44 years,
R/o 85/2B, Jatia Colony, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
(Seeking reinstatement on the Post of Signal Maintainer 305202.
Mob 6376560996)
----Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Western
Railway, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
302017
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer (Raj.) 305001
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Iliyas Khan Advocate.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 05/02/2021 Petitioner has filed the petition challenging order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner had been awarded harsh punishment. Petitioner was not working against an unattractive post to incur punishment for malingering.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:06:10 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-14891/2020] Petitioner was working with the Railways as Signal Maintainer Grade-II. He was sent on training and his services were regularised with effect from 07.05.2002. On 16.11.2006, petitioner developed some eye problem and sought special medical test. Petitioner was sent for special medical examination on 18.12.2006. The conclusion and discussion made by the Medical Board vide report dated 07.09.2007 reads as under:
"Medical Board of Mr. Manoj Kumar S/O Mr Om Prakash, F.S.M./S&T/KRW/Ajmer Conclusion and Discussion Employee Mr. Manoj Kumar S/O Mr Om Prakash, E.S.M. (Signal Maintainer)/ S & T / KRW / Ajmer is complaining of decreased vision both eyes. The best corrected vision recorded by board is R/eye - 6/18, L/eye - 6/18. Rest ocular examination of both eyes is within normal limits. The disc is normal with normal physiological cupping with healthy, pink neuroretinal rim. No retinal abnormalities are found. There is low compound myopia (uncomplicated). Intraocular pressure is within normal range (without any medications). The defects seen in perimetry are not at all co- relating with the ocular findings. The second and third perimetry show high false negative errors and are not reliable. Even with high false negative errors his mean deviation is decreasing significantly from the first field, which does not have false negative errors (which is not possible in glaucoma). This shows that the initial visual field is totally false and shows the mal-intentions of employee. Moreover the latency of VEP is within normal limits ruling out neurological causes of visual loss. On basis of above and his passing the initial medical examination any clinical pathology is ruled out. Hence medical board is of opinion that employee is malingering."
The Medical Board vide letter dated 18.10.2007 recommended as under:
"Recommendations:-
"Medical Board is of the opinion that Mr. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Omprakash, E.S.M. (Signal maintainer)/S&T/KRW/Ajmer is malingering from vision. He has been declared unfit under para 512(2) sub note (ii) of I.R.M.M. 2000."(Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:06:10 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-14891/2020] The term 'Malingering' as per Indian Railway Medical Manual Volume-I (Annexure-A/12 attached to the original application) reads as under:
"512. Vision tests:-
(1) xxxxxxxxxx (2) (i) Colour perception:-
xxxxxxxxx Note: (i) xxxxxxx
(ii) Malingering: It may sometime happen that an employee belonging to an un-attractive category like trains clerk may deliberately fail in the colour perception test during medical re-examination in expectation of being absorbed in a more attractive alternate employment like goods clerk/booking clerk etc. It must be remembered that an individual, having a normal colour perception retains such normalcy throughout the life unless he develops some pathological conditions of the optic nerve. In case, therefore a person is found to be colour blind subsequently without having developed one of these pathological conditions, and where there is also no doubt as to the findings of earlier examination, the person concerned should be declared as a malingerer. Where such malingering is suspected, the Administration should ensure that the person does not get any attractive alternate employment but only an unattractive post like office clerk. Obviously a decision in such cases has to be taken very judiciously. If malingering is established, he is psychologically not fit to remain in service and may be declared unfit for all classes.
The medical unfitness papers should carry an endorsement that "he has been declared unfit under para 512(2) sub note (ii) of I.R.M.M." Thus, a perusal of the above definition reveals that an employee like trains clerk in case deliberately fails in colour perception test during medical re-examination in expectation of being absorbed in a more attractive alternate employment like goods clerk/booking clerk etc., is said to be guilty of malingering. Admittedly, there is no definition of unattractive post. Hence, there is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not working on an unattractive post. Petitioner was posted as Signal Maintainer Grade-II and it (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:06:10 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-14891/2020] appears that with a view to get posting on some other post, made an application that due to weakness/problem in eyes, he could not correctly read the signals and the said fact would put the public in danger and had requested for medical re-examination. However, the Medical Board's Report shows that the petitioner had deliberately tried to fail in the medical examination. Basing reliance on the medical test report, the respondents ordered that the petitioner be compulsorily retired. Impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been passed as malingering is a shortcoming in jobs involving risks and dangers to human life and safety.
Learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that intention behind the rule was to discourage the deliberate failing in medical test in order to avoid handling high responsibility and stressful jobs. The rule mandates that the persons indulging in malingering would be unfit for all classes of jobs under the Railways. As per the medical report submitted by the Board, case of the petitioner fall within the term 'Malingering'.
Learned Tribunal, thus, rightly upheld the order of retirement of the petitioner on medical ground passed by the respondents against the petitioner.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /21
(Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:06:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)