Delhi High Court
Jai Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation ... on 23 August, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.7290/2017 & CM No.30165 /2017
+ Date of Decision: 23rd August, 2017
JAI SINGH .... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kishore Kumar Patel, Advocate
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN & ANOTHER ....Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition impugns the order dated 05.03.2015
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in OA No.1664/2014 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the
Original Application filed by the Petitioner herein. The Original
Application had been filed by the Petitioner challenging his
superannuation from service at the age of 55 years, upon being found
medically unfit for further extension of 5 years to serve till the age of
60 years.
2. The Petitioner had joined the Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) as a temporary Driver w.e.f. 13.08.1982. As per Regulation 10
of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment &
Service) Regulations, 1952 of the Respondents/DTC, the
superannuation of all DTC employees is 55 yrs. The drivers are
however considered for further extension of five years and they may
be retained in service upto the age of 60 years subject to their medical
fitness to be certified by Medical Board of the DTC, to work as a
driver.
3. The Petitioner who had been appointed on 13th August, 1982,
continued to serve till the age of 55 years and vide order dated 24 th
May, 2013, he was directed to retire from services of the Corporation
w.e.f. 30th June, 2003 on the ground that he was not found medically
fit for extension by the Medical Board. It may be noticed that before
his superannuation, the Petitioner was examined by a Medical Board
of the Respondents on 20th May, 2013 when the Medical Board
opined that he was suffering from "restricted movement of left little
finger unfit". Based on this medical report, the Petitioner was not
found fit for further extension and, accordingly, the order dated 24th
May, 2013 had been passed, wherein it was directed that he would
retire from services of the Respondents-Corporation w.e.f. 30th June,
2013. It appears from the record, that after learning about his being
declared unfit by the medical board of the Respondent/DTC, the
Petitioner, on his own, got himself examined by the Rehabilitation
Board, V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, who apparently
declared him fit, and armed with this medical report, he submitted an
appeal dated 10th June, 2013 to the Respondents for his re-
examination by the DTC Medical Board. The Petitioner's appeal was
rejected by the Respondents-Corporation vide its order dated 3rd
August, 2013 leading to the filing of the Original Application before
the Tribunal.
4. In his Original Application, the Petitioner challenged the order
superannuating him at 55 years and also prayed for his re-examination
by a Medical Board. The Respondents, however, justified their action
of not granting extension to the Petitioner and contended that the
retirement of the Petitioner was in accordance with the Regulations of
the DTC and the findings of its Medical Board. It was contended that
once the Petitioner was not found fit for the post of driver, as per
medical standards fixed by the Corporation, it would not be in public
interest to grant him further extension, especially, since the sole
purpose of the DTC is to facilitate the transportation, commuting and
travelling of the citizens of Delhi.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both the
parties and the fact that the Petitioner had been allowed to continue in
service upto 55 years of age, which was the normal superannuation
age provided in the regulations of the Respondent/DTC, dismissed the
Original Application by observing as under:-
"The Delhi Transport Corporation Drivers have to drive
the heavy vehicles (buses) at busy roads and the judgment
regarding their fitness to continue in service beyond the
age of 55 years should be left at the wisdom of DTC,
Medical Board which has answerability in this regard.
Misplaced sympathy in such cases can be counter
productive. Once the retention in service beyond the age
of retirement i.e 55 years is subject to medical fitness and
the DTC medical board found the applicant unfit to
be retained in service beyond such age, there is no scope
of interference in the matter by the Tribunal. The OA is
found devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed."
6. Challenging the order of the Tribunal before us, counsel for the
Petitioner has once again raised the same submissions which have
been considered by the Tribunal. He has submitted that once the
VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital found him medically fit, the action of
the Respondents in declaring him unfit was wholly arbitrary and
illegal. He has further contended that the Respondents ought to have
considered the medical report of a renowned Government Hospital i.e.
VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital and has urged that even otherwise, at
least his prayer for medical re-examination ought to have been
considered by the Respondent-Corporation.
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration, we find that it is an
admitted fact that the normal superannuation age of an employee of
the Respondent-Corporation is 55 years, and further extension in
service is specifically made subject to medical fitness. An employee
cannot claim further extension of service upto 60 years as a matter of
right and, therefore, once the Petitioner has been found medically unfit
by the Board of the Respondent, he cannot claim that his services must
be extended by relying on the medical opinion given by some other
Hospital. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that in such cases
where the Medical Board of the employer has declared an employee
unfit, it would not be safe, and would be inappropriate, to rely on the
reports of some other Hospital-who may not be aware of the
requirements of the job. The satisfaction with regard to the medical
fitness has to be of the employer who has to take work from the
employee and who is responsible to maintain the safety of its
operations. No malafides have been alleged by the Petitioner against
any officer, or member of the Medical Board of the Respondent.
Pertinently, he does not even dispute the existence of the physical
deformity found by the Medical Board, but claims that the same does
not adversely affect his functioning as a Bus Driver. This call had to
be taken by the Medical Board and not by the Petitioner, or the other
Hospital.
8. We, therefore, find no force in the submission of counsel for the
Petitioner that once the Rehabilitation Department of VMMC and
Safdarjung Hospital had found him medically fit, the said reports
should have been taken into consideration by the Respondents to grant
him extension.
9. We find absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the
Tribunal. The petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
CM No.30165 /2017 (for stay)
10. In view of the writ petition having been dismissed, this
application does not survive for adjudication and is dismissed as such.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 23, 2017/aa-
