The medical certification of permanent total disablement as per the Scheme's provisions entitles an employee to pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Patel, J. - In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar to disburse current and arrear monthly pension of the Petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.2001 since when he became invalidated along with 18 per cent interest incurred with Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short 'the Scheme'. S.I Patra v. Regional Provident Fund Commi. (B.K. Patel, J.)

2. Admittedly, Petitioner was working as Security Personnel with opposite party No. 2 -Winner Security Services (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd., B.J.B. Nagar, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar and was holding EPF account No. 04/4025/2156 from 1.4.1995 to 19.5.2001. It is not disputed that Petitioner was admitted into S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment of CVA Rt. Hemoplegia (Infarction) on 19.5.2001 and was discharged on 22..5.2001.

3. Petitioner's case is that while discharging duties he met with an accident on 19.5.2001 sustaining severe bodily injury which led him to COMA. In spite of treatment in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttak till 22.5.2001, he became permanently disable. While discharging the Petitioner from the hospital on 22.5.2001 under discharge certificate at Annexure-1, he was advised for physiotherapy and nursing care. As the Petitioner's entire right side body was paralysed, he applied for pension under the Scheme before opposite party No. 1. On receipt of application opposite party No. 1 sent the Petitioner to the Medical Board for examination with regard to his disability. Upon examination by the Medical Board certificate at Annexure-2 was issued indicating that Petitioner has become permanently incapacitated for further employment. However, despite representations including representation dated 27.9.2008 at Annexure-3, opposite party No. 1 has failed to disburse pension under the Scheme to the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 1 has filed a counter taking the stand that Petitioner is not entitled to pension under paragraph-15 of the Scheme which entitles an employee to pension if he has become permanently and totally disabled. It has been averred that in the certificate of the medical board under Annexure-3 it has been indicated that the Petitioner was found to have incurred only 50 per cent disability of permanent nature.

4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that discharge certificate of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack goes to establish that Petitioner was under treatment for CVA Rt. Hemoplegia (Infarction) which means that the entire right side body was paralysed. In the certificate at Annexure-2 it has been pointed out that Petitioner has become permanently incapacitated for further employment. Medical Board is the competent authority to certify regarding nature of disability. In the certificate under Annexure-2 there is an indication that C.D.M.O., Jagatsinghpur had issued a certificate to the effect that Petitioner had sustained 50 per cent disability of permanent nature. However, the Medical Board found that Petitioner was permanently incapacitated for the further employment. In such circumstances, the stand of the opposite party No. 1 to the effect that Medical Board found the Petitioner to have incurred 50 per cent disability is not correct. Paragraph-15 of the Scheme provides that an employee, who is permanently and totally disabled during employment shall be entitled to pension under the Scheme. Under the Scheme the term "permanent total disablement" has been defined to mean such disablement of permanent nature as incapacitates an employee for all work which he/she was capable of performing at the time of disablement. Opposite party No. 1 is, therefore, obliged to pay pension under the Scheme to the Petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party in course of his argument reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. He would argue tha