O.A. No. 363/2017. Case: Rajiv Kumar Azad Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 363/2017
CounselFor Appellant: Yogesh Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Kripa Shankar Prasad, Advocate
JudgesP.K. Basu, Member (A) and Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal, Member (J)
IssueEmployee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30; Persons With Disabilities (equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 47(1), 47(i)
Judgement DateApril 11, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


P.K. Basu, Member (A), (Principal Bench At New Delhi)

  1. The applicant was appointed as Guard in the Indian Railways on 29.01.1979. While going for duty on 01.05.2014, he met with a severe accident, as a result of which, he has been rendered permanently disabled. In fact, as per the medical report, the condition of the applicant was held as under:-

    "Recommendations: On the basis of original findings of medical board duly accepted by CMD on 30.08.2016, the members of the Medical Board are of the opinion that Shri Rajeev Kumar Azad S/o Shri R.C. Azad, working as Guard Mail/Express under SSM/TFC/NDLS is SSC is unfit in all medical categories of Indian Railway Services as per IRNN 2000 edition".

    The finding of the Medical Board in this case issued vide letter dated 05/06.09.2016, is as follows:-

    Sh. Rajeev Kumar Azad s/o. Sh. R.C. Azad is working as Guard Mail/Express under SSM/NDLS. He is FUC of RTA with associated brain damage and left sided hemiparesis with hydrocephalus and ventriculo-peritoneal shunt. Following the head injury, he is bed ridden and has become disoriented to time, place and person. He is unable to carry out any of his daily routine activities or even turn in his bed, get up, relieve himself, without constant and active support of his family members. In spite of multiple neurological consultations in various leading institutes, continuous treatment and active physiotherapy for over two years, there has not been any significant improvement in his mental condition. He is on sick from 01.05.2014 and his condition is not likely to improve any further in future.

  2. The respondents issued an order dated 30.09.2016 as follows:-

    "He is kept on supernumerary post w.e.f. 06.09.2016 till further orders. His pay will be charged under PS 11816 and salary bill will be charged in other tour except 'A' tour.

    His pay will be fixed later. He is not due for any benefit of running cadre.

    He may not be directed to this office without any letter from this office. His willingness for retirement must be required. His regular attendance may be ensured".

    This order has been challenged in this OA seeking the following reliefs:-

    "(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 only to the extent by which it has been directed that the applicant attendance is ensured and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to exempt the applicant to attend the office daily on the medical condition of the applicant and direct the respondents to release the monthly salary of the applicant against the supernumerary post w.e.f. 06.09.2016.

    (ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order direct the respondents to treat the entire period w.e.f. 01.05.2014 to 07.09.2016 as "hurt on duty" and grant the Special Disability Leave to the applicant with all the consequential benefits including pay and allowances during the entire period and treat the aforesaid period as qualifying service for all purposes.

    (iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT