Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 888 Del

$~A-18 to 20
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P. (C) 4297/2020, CM APPL. 15459/2020
       SURESH KUMAR                                         .....Petitioner
                   Through:                Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

                               Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                .....Respondents
                     Through:              Mr.Satyendra Kumar, Advocate
                                           for R-1.
                                           Ms.Rashmi Malhotra with
                                           Ms.Gargi Sharma, Advocates for
                                           Railways.

+      W.P. (C) 4298/2020, CM APPL. 15461/2020
       ANGREZ SINGH                                         .....Petitioner
                               Through:    Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

                               Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 .....Respondents
                     Through:              Mr.Vishal Bakshi, Advocate for R-
                                           1.
                                           Ms.Rashmi Malhotra with
                                           Ms.Gargi Sharma, Advocates for
                                           Railways.

+      W.P. (C) 4301/2020, CM APPL. 15475/2020
       JITENDER RANA                                        .....Petitioner
                    Through:               Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

                               Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                  .....Respondents




W.P.(C) No.4297/2020 & connected matters                          Page 1 of 3
                                Through:    Mr.Siddharth Khatana, Advocate
                                           for UOI.
                                           Ms.Rashmi Malhotra with
                                           Ms.Gargi Sharma, Advocates for
                                           Railways.

%                                          Date of Decision: 16th March, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                       JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the letters issued by respondents whereby the petitioners have been considered fit in medical category Bee-One with hearing aid. Petitioners seek directions to the respondents to correctly determine medical category of petitioners commensurate with their medical condition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the decision of Medical Board, as accepted by Principal Chief Medical Director, of placing petitioners in medical category Bee-one with hearing aid is not correct in view of duties entailed in RPF in Bee-one category. She states that the Medical category Bee-one in RPF entails patrolling/escorting duty work at railway stations.

3. From a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the Medical Board of Petitioners has found them fit in Bee-one with hearing aid at the discretion of PCMD as per para 523(e) of IRMM 2000.

4. Admittedly hearing aid has been provided to the petitioners.

5. It is settled law that this Court examines the decision making process and not the decision. In the present case, nothing has been pointed out which would indicate that the decision making process of the respondents was arbitrary and/or illegal. The only averment is that in view of the duties entail in RPF, the medical categorization should be separate and distinct from the Railways.

6. However, this Court is of the view that officials in the RFP as well as the Railways are bound to be posted in an around railway stations and there is nothing on record to warrant a separate medical categorization for the RPF personnel.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petitions along with pending applications being bereft of merits are dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J MARCH 16, 2021 KA