 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4919/2008 (Ramnagina Thug vs. General Manager WCL and another) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 24th March, 2009. *** Heard Mr B Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A S Mehadia, learned Advocate for Respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Following facts are not in dispute :- The petitioner was working as Loader in the Respondent-WCL. Services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide an order dated 30.8.1999. Settlement has taken place between the representative-Union and the respondents on 3.11.2000. The petitioner was, therefore, given re- employment as Loader on certain terms and conditions. Counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that since the petitioner failed to fulfill some of the conditions of re-employment, the services of the petitioner were discontinued from 2001. Again, there was a settlement between the representative-Union as  well as Respondents and as per the said settlement, the respondents agreed to give employment to the petitioner as Loader, subject to approval by the Medical Practitioner/Board. The petitioner was examined by the Medical Officer on 27.6.2003 who has certified that the petitioner, was unfit to work as Loader due to poor vision of left eye. The petitioner, thereafter, was also examined by the Medical Board on 19.3.2004 and the Board also issued certificate that the petitioner was unfit to do the job of the Loader because of the poor eye sight of left eye. 3. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board of Government Medical College and certificate issued by the said Board dated 14.7.2008 shows that visual acuity mentioned therein was as follows :- Right eye ..6/12 Left eye ..6/18 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 29 (f) of the Mines Rules, the said vision entitles the employee to work as Loader and, therefore, the respondents ought to have provided the said job to the petitioner. 5. Mr Mehadia, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the Medical Board of the W.C.L. found the petitioner unfit to work as Loader in view of poor eye sight of left eye and, therefore, the petitioner, in spite of settlement of 2003, could not be given job of the Loader.  6. Be that as it may; in the backdrop of the above-referred facts, there are two medical certificates on record – one issued by the Medical Board of the Respondents and the other by the Medical Board of Government Medical College regarding the eye-sight of the petitioner. It is the claim of the petitioner that the certificate issued by the Medical Board, Govt. Medical College demonstrates that the petitioner has an adequate eye-sight as per the Rules to work as a Loader. However, it appears that because of conflicting opinion expressed by the two Boards, the claim of the petitioner appeared to have not been considered by the respondents. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing the following directions :- 7. We dispose of the petition, with direction to the Respondents to produce the petitioner before the Medical Board of the Respondents on a particular day within a period of six weeks from today. One of the members of the Medical Board must be a renowned ophthalmologist, who shall medically examine the petitioner and shall issue appropriate certificate about the vision of the petitioner. The Board shall also consider the certificate dated 14.7.2008 issued by the Medical Board, Government Medical College. 8. On receipt of the certificate of the Medical Board, Respondents to take appropriate  decision about appointment of the petitioner accordingly, without further delay. JUDGE JUDGE sahare