2018 Supreme(Del) 236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
M/s Delhi Transport Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Surendra Pal – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6691 of 2017 and C.M. Appeal No. 27870 of 2017
Decided On : 05-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vibhor Mathur, Mr. Salil Srivastava.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of regular medical examinations for drivers and the need to shift physically unfit drivers to other posts as per the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Headnote:
DTC - Employment Dispute - DRTA Regulations, 1952, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - The court discussed the DRTA Regulations, 1952, Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the legal provisions related to the medical examination and fitness standards for drivers. The court emphasized the importance of regular medical examinations for drivers and the need to shift physically unfit drivers to other posts as per the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a driver in DTC, was retired due to a finger deformity. He sought reinstatement, which was initially rejected by DTC. The Tribunal later allowed the reinstatement, leading to the petitioner's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had continued working for over six years after the injury without causing any accidents. It also emphasized the importance of the medical certificate from AIIMS Hospital, declaring the respondent fit to drive a six-wheeler vehicle.
Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent's fitness for the driver's position, the medical examination process, and the application of disability rights laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent's work history post-injury, the AIIMS medical certificate, and the failure of the Review Medical Board to provide a comprehensive assessment of the respondent's capability to perform driver duties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the respondent to report for duty, imposed costs on the petitioner, and emphasized the need for regular medical examinations for drivers and the shifting of unfit drivers to other posts as per the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
1. The petitioner/DTC is aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3348/2014 filed by the respondent working on the post of a Driver in the DTC praying inter-alia for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.05.2014 whereunder, his plea for reinstatement in service stood rejected.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent and quashed and set aside the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the petitioner/DTC with directions to reinstate him w.e.f. 01.08.2013 with notional benefit of seniority and pay fixation and with a further direction that the actual salary and allowances would be paid to the respondent from the date he assumes the charge on the post of a Driver.
3. A brief glance on the facts of the case is considered necessary. The respondent was appointed as a Driver by the petitioner/DTC vide appointment letter dated 17.01.1988. In the year 2007, the respondent sustained an injury in his top phalange of the little finger of his right hand, which is described in medical terms as “Flexion Deformity.” The petitioner/ DTC served a Memo dated 23.05.2013 on the respondent in terms of Regulation No. 10 of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 (in short "Regulations"), for conducting his medical examination. The said examination is undertaken in respect of Drivers employed by the petitioner/DTC on their attaining the age of 55 years and only on their clearing the said examination, are their services extended on a year-to-year basis, in terms of the aforesaid Regulation.
4. The respondent was examined by the Medical Board of the petitioner/DTC on 27.05.2013 and he was advised to get his X-Ray conducted. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board on 06.06.2013 along with the X-Ray Report. Based on the said report, the Medical Board declared him unfit on the ground of suffering from “Flexion Deformity” in the little finger of his right hand. This was followed by a notice dated 18.6.2013 intimating the respondent that he would be retired on 31.07.2013, on attaining the age of 55 years. A few days therefrom, on 21.06.2013, the respondent on his own went to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Delhi and got himself examined by a Specialist as an OPD patient and the concerned Doctor opined that the respondent “may be considered fit to drive six wheeler vehicle.” A certificate dated 21.6.2013 to the said effect was issued by the Senior Resident, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at AIIMS Hospital.
5. Armed with the aforesaid report, the respondent filed O.A. No. 2502/2013 before the Tribunal in July, 2013 seeking reinstatement in service. Vide order dated 09.01.2014, the Tribunal issued a direction to the Chief Secretary, GNCTD to constitute a Medical Board to get the respondent examined in consultation with the petitioner/DTC at the earliest. In terms of the aforesaid direction, a Review Medical Board was constituted and the respondent appeared before the said Board on 21.05.2014.
6. In the course of arguments, when we tried looking for the report dated 21.05.2014 submitted by the Review Medical Board, which finds mention in the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the petitioner/DTC, rejecting the respondents representation, learned counsel for the petitioner/DTC states that he has not filed the entire pleadings before the Tribunal. The said statement runs contrary to the certificate dated 17.07.2017 filed by the counsel for the petitioner in these proceedings, certifying inter-alia that the complete trial record has been enclosed with the present petition.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over his copy of the paper book filed before the Tribunal and on perusing the same, we find that the report of the Review Medical Board states as follows:-
“The candidate is examined by the above mentioned Medical Board on 21.5.2014 as per the Medical Standards