IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29923 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PREMA.K., W/O.K.PRABHAKAR, PART-TIME SWEEPER, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), O/O THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD. MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29923/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 06/10/2001 OF THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 19/03/2003 ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON. P3 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 30/05/2003 OF R2. P4 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 07/08/2003 OF R2. P5 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22/08/2003 OF R3. P6 : COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26/02/2003 OFANOTHER CIVIL SURGEON. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29923 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that from 18/02/1985, she has been working as a Part Time Sweeper in Village Office, Kolathur, Kasaragod District. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 dated 06/10/2001, she applied for invalid pension. It is stated that along with the application, she enclosed Ext.P2 medical certificate issued by a Civil Surgeon certifying her illness. The District Collector considered her request and by Ext.P3 recommended her case for grant of invalid pension. But, however, this order required her to appear before a Medical Board. Accordingly, Exts.P4 & P5 notices were issued requiring the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board. 2. The petitioner contends that in view of Rule 43(b) of Part-III KSR, the incapacity for service, in so far as Government Servants other than Gazetted Officers are concerned, need be certified only by a Medical Officer not below the Rank of Civil WP(C) No.29923/2003 -2- Surgeon. It is stated that her incapacity having been certified by Ext.P2 Medical Certificate, Exts.P4 and P5 requiring her to appear before the Medical Board is illegal. It is stated that the respondents are bound to consider her case treating Ext.P2 as a valid certificate, and pension should be granted to her on that basis. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In paragraphs 5 & 6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that although a certificate issued by a Civil Surgeon will suffice, the petitioner had produced a medical certificate issued by an Assistant Surgeon, which certified that the petitioner was suffering from Occupational Lung Disease and Ischemic Heart Disease. It is stated that on the directions of the Tahsildar, she produced Ext.P2 certificate from a Civil Surgeon, which certified that the petitioner was suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease and Cervical Spondylytis. In view of the above contradiction in the medical certificates, the petitioner was called upon to appear before a Medical Board, and that the Medical Board examined the petitioner on 09/07/2003. It is stated that the Medical Board certified that verification of treatment records and reports produced before the Board, did not reveal any evidence of WP(C) No.29923/2003 -3- the petitioner having had Ischemic Heart Disease and its treatment. Therefore, it was suggested that the petitioner may get herself evaluated at the Medical College Hospital, and to produce detailed check up records for consideration of her request. It is stated that the petitioner did not comply with this direction. 4. The question raised by the petitioner is that having regard to the provisions of Rule 43(b) of Part-III, KSR, the respondents are bound to have acted upon Ext.P2. As already noticed, though the statutory provision supports the contention of the petitioner, the respondents had to get the petitioner evaluated by a Medical Board, in view of the inconsistency in the medical certificates produced by the petitioner herself. 5. When the certificates reveal an inconsistency about the ailments, the respondents cannot be expected to act upon one of those certificates and straight away grant relief to the claimant. On the otherhand, it is the duty of the respondents to evaluate the genuineness of the plea by getting the claimant examined by a competent Medical Board. This precisely is what the respondents have done in this case. WP(C) No.29923/2003 -4- From the above, I see nothing objectionable in calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board. This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg