Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2018WPC/432/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, son of a deceased SAIL employee, challenged the CAT order refusing compassionate appointment via job substitution under the Scheme for Dreaded Diseases. The Court examined medical records and found no error in the stance that the father was not fit for substitution, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs The Union Of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 432 of 2017

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Singh ….........Petitioner

¶4

Vrs.

¶5

1.The Union of India

¶6

2.The Steel Authority of India through the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro

¶7

3.The Executive Director(E.D.), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro

¶8

4.The General Manager, Bokaro Steel PFRS, Power Facilitier Repair Shop, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro ......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Tiwari For the Respondents : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Kaustav Panda ( for SAIL) : Ms. Rinky Jha ( J.C to S.C. Mines)

¶11

06/13.03.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Respondent Steel Authority of India Limited(SAIL).

¶12

Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, has by the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed in O.A. No. 051/00041/2016 (Annexure-2) refused to interfere in the original application seeking compassionate appointment. The writ petitioner is the son of the original applicant, Raghaw Singh, who was an employee of the SAIL working as a Technical Welder. He made an application on 03.07.2009 for compassionate appointment by substituting his dependent son in his place in view of his medical disablement in the light of the Scheme for Substitution of Employment for Employees Suffering from Dreaded Diseases (Annexure-7). He was examined by the Medical Board as per letter dated 20.05.2009 to be held on 06.06.2009 at 4.30 p.m. in the chamber of Dr.S.Narain (Annexure-5 series).

¶13

The opinion of the Medical board is enclosed as Annexure-6, the last line of which has been surprisingly shaded in black. However, from perusal of the impugned order passed by learned CAT, it appears that the opinion of the Medical Board adduced as Annexure-A was perused by the learned Tribunal and it has found that the opinion given was that this is not a fit case for job substitution.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the aforesaid observation of the learned Tribunal stating that the relevant portion of the note sheet (Annexure-A) was not filed by the Respondent no.1 to 4 along with the copy of the written statement as the copy served on the counsel for

¶15

-2-

¶16

the applicant also did not contain any such annexures. He has produced the copy of the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent no.1 to 4 served on the counsel for the applicant on 26.07.2016.

¶17

We have given indulgence to learned counsel for the petitioner to make reference to a document i.e., written statement, which is not on record. On perusal of the endorsement made on its first page, it gives an impression that written statement had pages 1 to 10 and annexures were from page 11 to 13. It was received on 26.7.2017.

¶18

This dispute about Annexure-A may not however detain us for the only reason that even if the opinion of the Medical Board enclosed to the present writ petition at Annexure-6 is taken into account, at the end it shows shading of the last 1 and ½ lines. Further after recording the state of his medical condition, it has rendered advice to the petitioner to attend physiotherapy. Even by this document at Annexure-6, the Medical Board had not opined that his case was fit for job substitution. In fact he was advised physiotherapy.

¶19

The competent authority under SAIL did not accept the application of the employee/ applicant, as a result, he continued till the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2010 on the post which he was holding and later on has passed away on 17.11.2016 as per Annexure-8, death certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Dr. Surendra Kumar, ADMO, BGH, Bokaro General Hospital. Under the Scheme, Annexure-7, for job substitution, an applicant could seek appointment of direct dependent, adult male child or young male spouse or in absence a direct young female dependent for appointment, if the applicant is found suffering from dreaded diseases (1) Cancer; (2) AIDS; (3) Total renel ( both kidneys) failure with no chances of recovery and (4) total paralysis resulting in complete crippling of body movement with no chances of revival.

¶20

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that employee was suffering from paralysis, which had crippled him totally from any movement, but we can only take notice of the report of the expert i.e. the Medical Board in that regard, as referred to herein above also. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Tribunal did not found anything irrational or illegal in the decision of the Respondent SAIL in respect of substitution of the dependent of the applicant for employment on the ground of medical disablement.

¶21

-3-

¶22

Upon consideration of the entire conspectus of the facts and the documents referred to herein above, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by learned CAT, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00041/2016 dated 11.11.2016. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶23

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶24

( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶25

A.Mohanty

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yudhisthir Prasad Roy Vs Smt.Malti Devi

Suman Prakash Alias Suman Mundu Vs Smt Divya Lalita

Meenu Devi Alias Meenu Bharti Vs Amit Kumar

Dharmendra Kumar Vs The Ranchi Municipal Corporation Through Its Municipal Commissioner And Ors.

Maumita Das Alias Moumita Day Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs Gayatri Kumari Singh