Delhi High Court
Prahalad Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10160/2016
Date of decision: 4th August, 2017
PRAHALAD SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hashmat Nabi with Mr.
Abhinav Thareja, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
Prahalad Singh, constable in the Railway Protection Force
was diagnosed to be suffering from mouth cancer and had remained
on leave for a considerable time.
2. He was operated in a private hospital on 17.09.2014 and
discharged on 22.09.2014.
3. The petitioner had thereafter reported to the Railway
Hospital, New Delhi for screening for re-categorization and
appointment on an alternative post. Petitioner was not paid salary
from June, 2014, though, he lacked finances even for treatment.
WP(C) 10160/2016 Page 1
4. Petitioner has placed on record a copy of notings by the
doctors at the Railway Hospital, Delhi. Noting dated 09.01.2015
acknowledges that the petitioner had attended the said hospital for
the first time on 09.10.2014. The petitioner was not given fitness
by the Railway Hospital as further investigations were to be carried
out. The matter was referred to the Chief Medical Officer, Delhi
for advice.
5. As there was delay despite written representations, the
petitioner was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 1363/2016. Vide
order dated 22.02.2016, the Court directed that the petitioner's
representation dated 28.11.2015 would be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible and speaking order should be passed
within four weeks with intimation to the petitioner. It is only
thereafter that the respondents conducted the Review Medical
Board and vide order dated 14.06.2016 the petitioner was re-
categorized and posted in the same scale.
6. The petitioner in the present petition, has prayed for back
wages and salary from June, 2014 to May, 2016. However, during
the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has
restricted his prayer to payment of back wages from October, 2014
to May, 2016. The petitioner has also prayed for reimbursement of
medical bills of Rs.1,79,000/- with interest. In view of the stand of
the respondents that the petitioner was yet to submit the bill(s)
through proper channel for verification, this prayer has been given
up by the petitioner with the statement that the petitioner would
WP(C) 10160/2016 Page 2
apply through proper channel and, if still aggrieved, would initiate
proceedings in accordance with law.
7. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that
petitioner is not entitled to salary/back wages as he had exhausted
his medical leave.
8. The submission of the respondents in the counter affidavit
misses the point for petitioner is not claiming payment or back
wages when he was on the medical leave. The contention of the
petitioner is that upon being fit to resume duty, he had reported on
09.10.2014 but was not given posting as the Review Medical Board
was not constituted. The Review Medical Board was constituted
only after the order dated 22.02.2016 was passed in W.P.(C) No.
1363/2016, filed by the petitioner. This also took time and finally
the petitioner was given appointment w.e.f. June, 2016. Salary was
also paid from June, 2016.
9. It is apparent from file notings made by the doctors at the
Railway hospital dated 09.01.2015 that the petitioner had reported
to the said hospital on 09.10.2014 and on dates thereafter.
10. Considering the aforesaid position we are of the opinion that
the petitioner should be paid salary from 01.11.2014 till
31.05.2016. At best the medical examination and posting orders etc.
should have been issued within the period from 09.10.2014 to
31.10.2014. The petitioner should not be denied salary for the
period thereafter as the respondents were at fault and to be blamed
WP(C) 10160/2016 Page 3
in not constituting the Review Medical Board. The notings by the
doctors' dated 09.01.2015 manifests and demonstrates to the
confusion prevailing as the respondents were unsure as to the
procedure for issue of fitness certificate. This was an internal matter
of the respondents. For the said lapse and fault, the petitioner
should not suffer.
11. In view of the above, we partly allow the writ petition with
direction to respondent to pay salary from 01.11.2014 till
31.05.2016. The said payment would be made within a period of
two months from today. In case the payment is not made within the
said period, respondents would pay interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of this order till payment is made.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 04, 2017
mr
WP(C) 10160/2016 Page 4
