Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Marikukkala Ramulti - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Director - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.42417, 42418 of 2018, 1734, 8475, 8485, 8491, 8494, 8524, 8732, 8741, 8916, 9106, 9564, 9994, 10300,10679, 10757,10763, 11090, 11213, 11287, 12316, 12755, 13008, 14898, 14914, 14923, 14950, 15238, 15251, 15255, 15271, 15289, 17049, 17245, 17246, 17252, 17525, 17565, 17577, 17594, 17669, 17686, 17689, 17715, 17719, 17751, 17885, 17928, 17930, 17953, 17956, 17963, 17980, 18000, 18118, 18162, 18277, 18278, 18303, 18334, 19244, 19245, 19350, 19919, 20740, 20744, 20745, 20751, 21068, 21222, 21646, 21647, 21678, 21839, 22097, 22347, 22349, 22436, 22618, 22624, 22900, 23486, 23495, 23502, 23512, 23534, 23541, 23542, 23543, 23578, 24326, 24389, 25063, 25064, 25657, 25688, 26407, 27033, 27560, 27563, 28175, 28562 of 2019; 1008, 1118, 1689, 2083, 2610 and 3713 of 2020
Decided On : 19-05-2020
Point of Law
In a democratic polity there is no room for hereditary succession to any office, including public employment, in a sense, the scheme of dependent employment carves out an exception and provides employment to a family member, loosely called, succession. It is based on nomination and no selection process is involved. It is an exception to normal method of recruitment to public employment
Headnote:
Constitution of India , Articles 14 191 g – Indian Mines Act, 1952 - Mines Rules, 1955 - The Board found that petitioners are not fit to work in the job held by them, for most of them in the underground mine. However, the Board declared them fit to work on the surface instead of underground/another surface job. Accepting the report of the Board, the petitioners were declared as medically unfit to continue in the job held by them at the time of medical examination and provided alternative job on the surface –Challenged – Held, first proviso to Section 9 (A) (5) where an employee was declared unfit to do job held by him at the time of reporting for medical examination but alternative job is not readily available to him, he should be paid disability allowance. Rule 82 –A (1) deals with such contingency and specifies disability allowance payable. In these cases, SCCL has provided alternative employment; many of the petitioners have joined. Therefore, what is envisaged by first proviso to Section 9-A (5) and Rule 82-A (1) is not attracted. Second proviso to Section 9-A (5) and Rule 82-A (2) is also not attracted, as these employees have not opted to leave the employment. Thus, Rule 82-A of the Rules is not violated by the SCCL. Petitioners desire to be declared as unfit for employment and to grant all benefits, particularly dependant employment – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners are employed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCCL’). Claiming that they were not keeping good health, they applied to subject them to medical examination to test their fitness to continue in the employment. Accordingly, petitioners were examined by the Corporate Medical Board (the Board) of the SCCL
Finding of the Court;
first proviso to Section 9 (A) (5) where an employee was declared unfit to do job held by him at the time of reporting for medical examination but alternative job is not readily available to him, he should be paid disability allowance. Rule 82 –A (1) deals with such contingency and specifies disability allowance payable. In these cases, SCCL has provided alternative employment; many of the petitioners have joined. Therefore, what is envisaged by first proviso to Section 9-A (5) and Rule 82-A (1) is not attracted. Second proviso to Section 9-A (5) and Rule 82-A (2) is also not attracted, as these employees have not opted to leave the employment. Thus, Rule 82-A of the Rules is not violated by the SCCL. Petitioners desire to be declared as unfit for employment and to grant all benefits, particularly dependant employment.
Result: Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. Petitioners are employed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCCL’). Claiming that they were not keeping good health, they applied to subject them to medical examination to test their fitness to continue in the employment. Accordingly, petitioners were examined by the Corporate Medical Board (the Board) of the SCCL. The Board found that petitioners are not fit to work in the job held by them, for most of them in the underground mine. However, the Board declared them fit to work on the surface instead of underground/another surface job. Accepting the report of the Board, the petitioners were declared as medically unfit to continue in the job held by them at the time of medical examination and provided alternative job on the surface. Petitioners are not satisfied with the course adopted by the SCCL management and instituted these writ petitions. Petitioner claim that having declared them unfit to hold the present job, they should be retired on medical grounds and their dependent should be provided employment.
2. In this batch of writ petitions, based on the prayers sought, they can be grouped into three categories. For convenience, in each category prayer in one writ petition is extracted, i.e., W.P No. 42417 of 2018 (Category I), W.P No. 10757 of 2019 (Category II) and W.P. No. 17245 of 2019 (Category III).
(i) Category I cases are:— W.P.No.s 42417/2018, 42418/2018, 11287/2019, 17885/2019, 2083/2020 and 3713/2020.
Prayer in W P No. 42417 of 2018 reads as under:
…..to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in declaring me as medically fit for duties as per the result declared on 18 07 2018 without conducting proper medical examination by the specialist even though the petitioner is not able to perform his duties in view of various ailments and not sending the petitioner to Corporate Medical Board for medical reexamination as per the representation submitted by him on par with other similarly situated employees as illegal arbitrary abuse of process of law violation of principles of natural justice and discrimination and set aside the result of the Corporate Medical Board dated 18 07 2018 in so far as the petitioner is concerned who was shown at Sl No 187 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct medical reexamination on the petitioner as per the directions issued by this Honble Court in Writ Appeal No 1080 of 2017 and batch dated 06 09 2017 and W P No 38451 of 2015 and batch dated 22 06 2016 by considering the representation submitted by him in the interest of justice and pass
(ii) Category II cases are:— W.P.No.s 10757/2019, 10763/2019, 12316/2019, 15238/2019, 15251/2019, 15289/2019, 17049/2019, 21646/2019, 21647/2019, 21678/2019, 21839/2019, 27560/2019, 27563/2019, 2610/2020.
Prayer in W P No. 10757 of 2019 reads as under:
………to issue a writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the decision dated 21 05 2019 of the respondents Corporate Medical Board in declaring the petitioner as Medical Unfit for Under Ground and Fit to work as General Mazdoor on surface intended with a view to avoid dependant employment to the family member as per existing scheme which benefit was provided to similar to the petitioner provided dependant employment thereby denying to extend the said benefit to the petitioner as wholly illegal unjust unconstitutional violative of Articles 14 191 g of the Constitution of India contrary to the provisions of Mines Act 1952 and Rules 1955 as well Corporate Medical Rules clarification dated 17 05 2013 Circular dated 09 03 2019 and amounts to forcible continuity in service on surface and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith discharge the petitioner from service and to provide dependant employment to the petitioner family member as per Law and pass
(iii) Category III cases are:— W.P.No.s 17245/2019, 17246/2019, 17252/2019, 17525/2019, 1
