Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1. Though, there is some variation in the prayers sought in the writ petitions, in substance, petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-SCCL in providing them alternative job on the surface instead of retiring them on medical invalidation grounds by extending all other benefits, including provision of dependent employment, having declared as medically unfit to perform the duties and responsibilities hitherto performed by them in the post held by them at the time of medical examination. The orders declaring them as unfit to perform the jobs held by them and orders appointing them to alternative posts on the surface are challenged in these writ petitions. Having regard to the issues involved, all the learned counsel requested to hear these cases together.
(3) He would further submit that as per Circular Ref.No. CRP/PER/IR/C/081/305 dated 9.3.2018, 'medical invalidation' means a person totally incapacitated to work; therefore, dependent employment has to be provided when an employee is declared medically invalidated even to work underground. He would further submit that as per the orders of the Government notified vide Circular Ref.No.CRP/PER/ IR/C/081/306 dated 9.3.2018, 16 diseases are covered for assessment of suitability of employee. The list is comprehensive and if Corporate Medical Board examines the fitness of the employees strictly in accordance with parameters laid down in the circular dated 9.3.2018, the petitioners' cannot be declared as medically fit even to do surface job.

32. At this stage, it is apt to note the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Siva Murthy (supra) on scheme of dependent employment when employee retired on medical invalidation grounds. It reads as under:

"26. As an incidental reason for holding that compassionate appointments are not permissible in cases of medical invalidation, the High Court has observed that death stands on a "higher footing" when compared to sickness. The inference is compassionate appointment in case of medical invalidation cannot be equated with death-in-harness cases, as medical invalidation is not of the same degree of importance or gravity as that of death; and that as medical invalidation is not as serious as death-in-harness, exception can be made only in cases of employees dying-in-harness. But what is lost sight of is the fact that when an employee is totally incapacitated (as for example when he is permanently bedridden due to paralysis or becoming a paraplegic due to an accident or becoming blind) and the services of such an employee is terminated on the ground of medical invalidation, it is not a case of mere sickness. In such cases, the consequences for his family may be much more serious than the consequences of an employee dying-in-harness.
27 [Ed.: Para 27 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./70/2008 dated 4-9-2008.] . When an employee dies in harness, his family is thrown into penury and sudden distress on account of stoppage of income. But where a person is permanently incapacitated due to serious illness or accident, and his services are consequently terminated, the family is thrown into greater financial hardship, because not only the income stops, but at the same time there is considerable additional expenditure by way of medical treatment as also the need for an attendant to constantly look after him. Therefore, the consequences in case of an employee being medically invalidated on account of a serious illness/accident, will be no less, in fact far more than the consequences of death-in-harness. Though generally death stands on a higher footing than sickness, it cannot be gainsaid that the misery and hardship can be more in cases of medical invalidation involving total blindness, paraplegia, serious incapacitating illness, etc. ...........