The court emphasized the mandatory provisions of IRMM-2000 regarding decategorization and assignment to lighter duty, and held that the Railway authorities must comply with these rules before declaring an employee fit for duty.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) with effect from May 22, 2006. after completion of initial training, he was posted at the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW), Chittaranjan on and from March 31, 2007. On January 29, 2019, the petitioner was placed in the Sick List of CLW and was referred to the B.R. Singh Hospital, where the petitioner was advised to avoid running/jumping, over-height, fire and electrical hazards and the use of firearms.

2. It is an admitted position that on the basis of the EEG Report dated October 17, 2019 the Controlling Officer was advised to post the petitioner in a place where he could adhere to the above restrictions in terms of medical advice.

3. The petitioner was transferred to Sealdah Division from CLW vide Force Order No. 42/2019 dated april 12, 2019.

4. Subsequently, as per the allegation of the Railway authorities, a medical board examined the petitioner and declared him fit to resume duty in his original category of Railway Service as per Para 543(1) of Indian Railway Medical Manual-2000 (in short, IRMM-2000).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner thereafter had to prefer a writ petition bearing W.P.a. No.5912 of 2020 before this Court, challenging the refusal of the respondent-authorities to disburse the petitioner's arrear salaries. Ultimately, this Court, vide order dated July 27, 2020, directed the respondent-authorities to disburse the arrear salaries within one month from the dated of communication of that order to the respondents and thereafter to go on paying current salary to the petitioner subject to the petitioner joining his new medical category of employment. Furthermore, the respondent no. 3 therein was directed to issue a certificate of decategorization or change of occupation of the petitioner upon perusal of the certificate dated april 19, 2019issued by the concerned Medical Officer of the B.R. Singh Hospital.

6. Despite the said direction, the Railway authorities constituted a Medical Board subsequently, after about one and a half years had passed subsequent to the petitioner being put on the Sick List, which examined the petitioner and found that the petitioner was fit to join his original service, which is, according to the petitioner, contrary to Rules 559 and 561 of the IRMM-2000.

7. The respondent-authorities, as per the petitioner's allegation, also withheld the subsequent current salary of the petitioner and abstained from complying with the specific direction of this Court to issue a decategorization certificate to the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities, by placing reliance on written instructions, argues that Rule 561 of the IRMM-2000 is not mandatory as far as the provision regarding consideration of the employee by the railway doctor as medically unfit for the duties of his original post, after expiry of six months of the sick period, is concerned.

9. It is further argued by the Railway authorities that the petitioner abstained from presenting himself for medical examination before the medical officer from time to time, due to which he was discharged from the Sick List on april 1, 2020, whereafter his leave was treated as 'unauthorised' absence and his salary was withheld.

10. after april 1, 2020, it is alleged, the petitioner neither reported before the concerned Medical Officer nor reported at his place of duty.

11. For the entire period, accordingly, the respondent-authorities withheld the disbursal of the petitioner's salary.

12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the allegations made about the petitioner abstaining from meeting with the Medical Officer prior to april 1, 2020, are extremely vague. Even after april 1, 2020, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner failed to report before the concerned medical office or at his place of duty.

13. Even if it is assumed for the s