Delhi High Court
Islam vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 26 February, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : February 26, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 1257/2013
ISLAM ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Shailender Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Employed as a Driver with DTC in the year 1979 and subjected to
medical fitness as per the fitness norms notified on April 08, 1976 the
petitioner had a right to serve DTC till he attained the age of 55 years and
thereafter had a right to be considered for further retention till he attained the
age of 60 years but upon being found medically fit.
3. It is not in dispute that in the year 1986 revised medical fitness norms
were notified by DTC on July 02, 1986, making substantial departure from
the previous „Standard of Physical Fitness‟ notified on April 08, 1976.
4. As per the revised medical fitness norms the condition of fitness
became : 'No infirmity whatsoever in the body‟. Pertaining to Drivers, the
revised norm was that there should be movement of all body parts without
sensory loss or loco-motor disability.
5. As noted above when the petitioner joined service as a Driver in the
year 1979 he was medical examined and applying the norms of 1976 was
found fit notwithstanding a segment of the phalanx of the middle finger of
the right hand being partially amputated, but with the nail at the base being
intact, and as per photographs Annexure P-4 the top phalanx being
amputated by about 20% of the segment of the phalanx.
6. Petitioner attained the age of 55 years in the year 2011 and was sent
for medical evaluation. Applying the revised norms of the year 1986 he was
found unfit for service to be extended, and for which fact the question of law
which arises is : Whether the respondents had to test the suitability on
medical evaluation with reference to the norms as of the year 1976 or the
revised norms.
7. Suffice would it be to state that if a norm of suitability is revised, it is
said norm which will govern suitability if the Rules require suitability to be
tested on a date after the revised norms have been enforced.
8. But we find that with reference to the medical norms notified on July
02, 1986 an Office Order was issued on February 09, 1989 which reads as
under:-
"Slight injury resulting in loss of pulp but nail being
intact to any one of the finger including thumbs and toes
of both hands and feet or malunited fracture of shaft of
any one of phalanges of both hands and feet but
movements at interphalangeal joint being intact with firm
grip or hand can be considered for relaxation by the
Medical Board provided above conditions do not
interfere in the performance of duty."
9. Apparently, the Review Medical Board has ignored the said Office
Order dated February 09, 1989 inasmuch as a slight injury resulting in loss
of pulp but nail being intact in any finger with interphalangeal joint being
intact would not render the person unfit as long as the hand retained a firm
grip. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing petitioner to be
brought before the Review Medical Board once again with a direction that
the Board would take into account the Office Order dated February 09,
1989. If the petitioner is found medically fit his services would be re-
engaged and the petitioner would be entitled to wages for the period
interregnum. If the opinion of the Board is against the petitioner, reasons
thereof with reference to the Office Order dated February 09, 1989 would be
recorded and petitioner would be entitled to remedy as per law.
10. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2013
dk
