Surya Prakash vs Union Of India & Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 2710 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18318 of 1999
 

 
Petitioner :- Surya Prakash
 
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Nigam
 
Respondent Counsel :- S.N. Srivastava/S.S.C.,A.N.Rai,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

This is a writ petition for a direction to the respondents to constitute Review Medical Board and reinstate the petitioner on his original post, being found and declared fit with all consequential benefits or in the alternative to grant invalid pension from the date of invalidation with all the consequential benefits and continue to pay the same till the age of superannuation.

The parties have exchanged their Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits. Hence the present Writ Petition is being finally disposed at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Union of India.

The submission of behalf of the petitioner is that he was selected for the post of Constable on 18.7.1983 and subsequently he was confirmed on the above post. After some time due to hard-working, the petitioner developed some mental trouble. A Medical Board was constituted vide letter dated 19.9.1989 and the petitioner was subjected to medical examination.

The Medical Board after examining the petitioner considered him unfit to be retained in service as he was found to be suffering from ''Manic Depressive Psychosis'. The Board, therefore, proposed to invalidate the petitioner from service vide notice dated 15.10.1989 the petitioner was thereupon invalidated from service with effect from 19.11.1989.

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the treatment from the date of invalidation, the petitioner became fit and restored to normalcy. He moved an application to the respondent no.4 to reinstate him in service as he was fit to be retained in service.

The respondent no.3 vide letter dated 26.12.1995 informed him that the Doctors have already found him unfit for service on account of medical illness and, therefore, he cannot be reinstated or taken back in service.

Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he made several efforts and requested the respondents to produce him before the Review Medical check up but no action was taken.

The respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that when notice for invalidation was issued to the petitioner he was given an option to request for examination by the Medical Review Board within a month. The petitioner did not opt for the Medical Review Board and made a request that pension and other monetary benefits be given to him. The petitioner, therefore, himself accepted the invalidation and did not make any prayer for Medical Review Board. After a gap of several years, the petitioner made a request for a Medical Review Board without any documentary evidence to the effect that he was mentally fit for service.

It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Medical Board after carefully examining the petitioner, issued the certificate dated 29.9.1989 clearly indicating therein that the petitioner was brought to the hospital by his relatives as the case of psychiatric disturbances and since then he had been admitted in the hospital. He was treated in the hospital as a case of ''Manic Depressive Psychosis'. His family members informed the doctors that he some times destroys the things and uses filthy language to others. He also runs away from his home and he lacks concentration. The Medical Board was of the opinion that the disease from which the petitioner was suffering, was relapsing in nature and the petitioner did not take medicine regularly. The relapse of the disease might prove fatal to him and to others. With this mental condition he could not be put to any job of responsibility. The Members of the Board were of the opinion that the petitioner could no longer be an efficient member of the force.

It was on the basis of this report of the Medical Board that the petitioner was invalidated from the service. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for constitution of Review Medical Board and directing the respondents to take him back in the service declaring him fit is concerned, it cannot be accepted at this stage for the reason that the petitioner himself did not opt for Medical Review Board within the stipulated time rather he accepted the invalidation and made a prayer that his post-retiral benefits be given.

After a gap of several years the petitioner made a request that Medical Review Board be constituted and he should be allowed to appear before the Medical Review Board on the ground that after invalidation from service he got himself treated and became absolutely fit for service. However, no certificate or documentary evidence with regard to the treatment and his fitness has been filed before this Court. In view of this, the prayer for directing the respondents to constitute Review Medical Board and reinstate him on his original post is devoid of any merit.

With regard to post-retiral benefits, it has been informed by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has already been paid the amount which was due.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits since the petitioner had not completed ten years of service he is not entitled to any pension.

The petitioner has claimed the benefit of Standing Order No.7/99 which relates to the rehabilitation of force personnel and is annexed with the Supplementary Counter Affidavit (the Standing Order).

The Standing Order referred to above, provides for the rehabilitation of the disabled personnel, who are disabled due to injuries sustained in action against anti-social elements and those who are disabled due to sickness or accident.

The third category as mentioned in the aforesaid Standing Order is in respect of those persons who are disabled due to Psychiatric disease. The Standing Order provides that it is the responsibility of the department to make efforts to rehabilitate the personnel who are disabled due to injuries or sickness so that they may support their families.

After the examination by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board such persons may be allowed to continue in service in lighter job such as Dak/Office runner, telephone operator, attendants or any other specified duty considered suitable for them.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that this scheme of rehabilitation applies only to those persons who are disabled due to injuries or sickness but this scheme does not apply to the persons who are suffering from mental disease. The Standing Order, referred to above, provides that those persons who have been declared unfit on the ground of Psychiatric disease will be invalidated out immediately.

On the basis of this provision, it is submitted on behalf of respondents that the petitioner has already been invalidated on account of mental disease and as such the question of his rehabilitation under this scheme does not arise.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that paragraph 10 of the Standing Order provides that the persons who are not found fit for being accommodated in any of the post mentioned above, will be referred to the Medical Invalidation Board as per normal rules. On invalidation they will be trained for alternative jobs for their suitable placement in various Government/Private establishments.

The reading of clause 10 of the Standing Order indicates that special provision has been made for those persons who after examination by the Departmental Invalidation Board could not qualify in service and for that reason were invalidated. The petitioner submits that he has already been invalidated and, therefore, he should get the benefit of clause-10 of the Standing Order.

The respondents counsel, on the other hand submit that the entire scheme of rehabilitation has been made only in respect of those persons who are disabled due to injuries or sickness but this does not apply to those who are invalidated due to mental disease.

Clause 8 of the Standing Order clearly provides that those persons who are declared unfit on the ground of mental disease will be invalidated out immediately.

It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Medical Board has not only carefully examined the petitioner but specialised treatment was also given to him but without any improvement in his mental condition. The petitioner is suffering from such mental disease that neither he can be assigned any job nor he can be trained for any placement, in any Government/ Private establishments.

The contention of the petitioner that after treatment he became absolutely fit for service, is not supported by any medical certificate. Moreover, when the notice of invalidation was served upon him, he himself opted for the retirement from the service and accepted the invalidation. The copy of the letter dated 7.11.1989 written by the petitioner himself mentioning his intention to accept the invalidation is annexed with the Supplementary Counter Affidavit of the respondents.

In view of the admission of the petitioner that he has been suffering from mental disease and considering the fact that he did not opt for Medical Review Board within the prescribed time limit, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed.

So far as the rehabilitation scheme, as contained in the Standing Order is concerned, the petitioner has already been found to be suffering from Psychiatric disease which in the opinion of the Medical Board is relapsing in nature and may prove fatal to the petitioner as well as to the other persons. He cannot, therefore, be trained for any alternative job.

In view of the observations made above, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed. There will no order as to costs.

24.5.2013