Kerala High Court
N. Vasavan vs The Union Of India Represented By
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 20563 of 2004 (W)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
N. VASAVAN, EX-GS-141179-H,
RESIDING AT PERUMPRAVIL HOUSE, KOTTAMPALLY
MADATHIL KARAZHAMA P.O., OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADVS. SRI. R. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
SMT. SABINA JAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, SURFACE TRANSPORT BRDB, BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O.
NEW DELHI-110011.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS,
SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTT
NEW DELHI 110010.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER HQ (P) VARTAK
C/O. 99 APO.
4. THE OFFICER COMMANDING 62 RCC-GREF,
C/O. 99 APO.
5. THE COMMANDER, 346, SURFACING PLATOON,
GREF, C/O. 99 APO.
BY ADVS. SRI. M.L .SURESH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA
SMT. T.D. RAJALAKSHMI, SCGSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sp
WP(C).No. 20563 of 2004 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT. P1 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND REPORT OF THE MEDICAL
BOARD.
EXT. P2 - COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR
COMPUTING AND ASSESSING THE WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION.
EXT. P3 - COPY OF THELR.NO.15170/VTK//75/EIC "C" DATED
20.02.2003 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P4 - COPY OF THE LR. NO.17023/77/MV/X4/EIC DATED 31.07.2003
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.08.2003 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
sp
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
---------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.20563 Of 2004
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as pioneer in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) on 27.05.1969. He was discharged from service, due to reduction in establishment, in 1972. He was again appointed in GREF on 06.11.1982 as pioneer. He was promoted as road roller driver on 18.05.1994. He was found medically unfit as he became Hemiplegic with Rheumatoid Arthritis etc. and, accordingly, he was discharged from service with effect from 01.10.2002.
2. The petitioner asserts that his ailments, based on which he was found medically unfit to continue in service under GREF, are directly attributable to the conditions of service. Therefore, according to him, he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act as the same is made applicable to the employees under GREF. Claiming such compensation, the petitioner's wife submitted a representation W.P.(C) NO.20563 Of 2004 2 on behalf of the petitioner. But, that was rejected finding that the disease was not attributable to service and the same is not included in the list of occupational diseases as per the relevant schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent claiming compensation, contending that the disease was contracted while her husband was in service and it was attributable to the service conditions. In order to quash Ext.P4 and for a direction to consider Ext.P5, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the ailments had been contracted while he was continuing in service and it was directly attributable to the conditions of service. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to compensation as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, disputing the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ailments of the petitioner are not attributable to his conditions of service. The petitioner was W.P.(C) NO.20563 Of 2004 3 subjected to examination by a Medical Board. The proceedings of the Medical Board have been produced as Ext.P1. It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the Medical Board found that the diseases of the petitioner were not directly attributable to conditions of service. It was also noted in this document that the disability was contracted while he was in service. That the diseases contracted while the petitioner was in service ipso facto will not lead to the conclusion that the diseases were directly attributable to his conditions of service. Since the Medical Board found that the diseases were not attributable to his conditions of service, this court does not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P4 order issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the claim for compensation.
5. The only question now survives is whether a direction can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed on behalf of the petitioner for compensation. The 2nd respondent is a higher authority. It is the case of the petitioner that his diseases were contracted while he was serving under GREF and they were directly attributable to his conditions of service under GREF. If the petitioner is able to substantiate W.P.(C) NO.20563 Of 2004 4 his contention that his diseases were contracted for reasons directly attributable to his conditions of service under GREF by way of producing either documentary or oral evidence, the higher authority viz., the 2nd respondent may be able to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is given an opportunity to substantiate his contention before the 2nd respondent, he will be able to produce sufficient evidence satisfying that authority. Ext.P5 representation has been filed as early as in 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that that representation is still pending. In view of all these facts and after hearing both the sides, this court is satisfied that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case that the diseases, based on which he was found medically unfit to continue in service, are directly attributable to his conditions of service before the 2nd respondent.
6. In the result, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation on its merits within a period of two months after receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner or his representative shall be afforded W.P.(C) NO.20563 Of 2004 5 an opportunity of being heard by the 2nd respondent before disposing of Ext.P5. The petitioner or his representative will be free to produce oral or documentary evidence before the 2nd respondent in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that his diseases are directly attributable to his conditions of service under GREF.
This W.P.(C) is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE dg