IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10048 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Union of India through the G.M.E.C. Railway, Hajipur 2. The G.M. (P) E.C. Railway, Hajipur 3. The Chief Medical Director, E.C. Railway, Hajipur 4. The Divisional Railway Manager E.C.Railway, Danapur 5. The Sr.D.E.N. (Co-ordination) E.C. Railway, Danapur 6. The Sr. D.P.O., E.C. Railway, Danapur 7. The Chief Medical Superintendent, E.C. Railway, Danapur 8. The Chief Medical Superintendent E.C. Railway, Danapur 9. The Medical Superintendent E.C. Railway, Garhara 10. The Sr. D.F.M. E.C. Railway, Danapur 11. The Section Engineer (P.Way) E.C. Railway, Mokama (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Raj Kumar s/o Bhonu, Gangman, at Gang No.1 Under Section Engineer (P. Way) E.C. Railway, Mokama, resident of Barh, Budhani Chak Naya Tola, Dalkuwa, Patna (Bihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : ---- ====================================================== 2 19-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 11.8.2010 whereby O.A. No.9 of 2009 preferred by sole respondent, Raj Kumar has been allowed. 2. The Tribunal has considered the relevant facts and relying upon the reports of the Divisional Medical Officer and certificate issued by him as well as reports from Shankar Netrayalaya, Chennai found that the respondent while posted as Gangman (Trackman) under Section Engineer (P. Way), Mokama has become blind. Since there was no difficulty in appreciating Patna High Court CWJC No.10048 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 2 the fact that the respondent has become blind while in job, the Tribunal has considered Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and in that light considering provisions in the Indian Railway Establishment Code introduced vide amendment dated 29.4.1999, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order 6.11.2008 whereby the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ord.), E.C. Railway, Danapur had denied salary with effect from 7.10.2004 without giving him any alternative or supernumerary post. The Tribunal has directed the authorities to adjust or absorb the applicant/ respondent herein in any suitable alternative post and if that cannot be done, to keep him on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available for him or till he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Some other consequential benefits have also been granted by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although essential facts relating to blindness of the respondent may not be in dispute, the respondent was required to get himself placed in an appropriate category by the Medical Board at Divisional Hospital, Danapur. According to him, the relief granted to the applicant cannot be justified unless there is a confirmation of the appropriate category in which the respondent has to be Patna High Court CWJC No.10048 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 3 placed on account of his blindness. The Tribunal has noticed the aforesaid contention and in paragraph 12, it has observed that no document has been filed by the respondents to show that the applicant was directed to report to any Medical Board. The Tribunal in such circumstances rightly relied upon report of the Divisional Medical Officer, the reports of the AIIMS, New Delhi and Shankar Netryalaya to come to the conclusion inconformity with the aforesaid reports that the applicant was blind in both the eyes. 4. In our view, it was the duty of the petitioners to get the applicant medically categorized and in absence of any documents to show that the applicant was referred to the Medical Board, such failure on the part of the petitioners cannot deprive the applicant/ respondent herein of his rights under law. If the petitioners want to complete the formalities they would be at liberty to obtain proper categorization in respect of the applicant from the concerned Medical Board by taking the respondent to the Medical Board whenever the Medical Board is constituted and is available to examine the applicant, but such formality, in our view, cannot stand in the way of the applicant/ respondent herein in getting the relief which has been granted by the Tribunal. If the report of the Medical Board furnishes a cause of action to the Patna High Court CWJC No.10048 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 4 petitioners they would be at liberty to seek review of the order of the Tribunal on the basis of report of the Medical Board. We have passed this order keeping in view the fact that respondent is to superannuate in 2011 itself. 5. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)