Compassionate appointment criteria rely on established medical fitness evaluations; arbitrary changes in fitness assessments prior to retirement do not equate to entitlement for compassionate benefits.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Heard Shri S. M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“i) To quash the impugned order dated 16-09-2019, (Annexure-A-1).

ii). To direct the respondents for treated the applicant as medically de-categorized and retired from service from the report of CMS Jhansi, which has been approved by AIIMS and Medical Board dated 25-04-2019 as well as Dr. R.J. Chaudhary report dated 11-01-2019 and to appoint one son under Medical categorized Rules within time bound period.

iii). To pass any such further order as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) Award the cost of the Petition in favour of the applicant.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicant was appointed as Khalasi (Group ‘D’) in 1988 and promoted as Technician-III (Group ‘C’) on 11.08.2011. While on duty on 21.07.2011, he sustained a head injury resulting in severe loss of vision in one eye, later affecting the other eye as well. Subsequent medical examinations by Railway Hospital Jhansi and AIIMS New Delhi recorded vision at 6/60 (right eye) and nil (left eye). On 11.01.2019, the Additional Chief Health Director (Eye) at Central Hospital Allahabad declared him unfit for all medical categories. The Medical Board at Jhansi on 25.04.2019 also recommended referral to PCMD Allahabad, noting no improvement in vision. However, just 14 days prior to his superannuation on 30.09.2019, another medical board at Central Hospital Allahabad, including the same officer who earlier declared him unfit, altered the assessment and declared him fit in C-1 category with vision of 6/12 in the right eye. The applicant alleges this finding is false and fabricated to deny him benefits under medical de-categorization rules, which would have entitled him to voluntary retirement benefits and compassionate appointment for a family member.

5. Per contra, by way of filing counter affidavit, respondents counsel refuted that the medical findings declaring the applicant fit in C‑1 category on 16.09.2019 were false or fabricated. The medical history shows that the applicant initially suffered severe vision loss in 2011 and was declared unfit for certain posts; however, subsequent examinations, including at AIIMS and Central Hospital Allahabad, indicated improvement in the right eye. On 11.01.2019, Dr. R.J. Chaudhary opined the applicant was not fit at that time and referred him for further evaluation; this was not a final or permanent unfitness certificate. A duly constituted Medical Board, chaired by Dr. Vineet Agrawal with other independent members, examined the applicant in September 2019 and found him fit in C‑1 with glasses, based on improved vision (right eye 6/12, left eye PL+). The allegations of bias, manipulation, or deliberate denial of medical de‑categorization benefits are wholly unfounded. The Board’s recommendations were impartial and based on the applicant’s actual medical condition at the time of examination. It is further submitted that the Medical Board is empowered only to assess medical fitness, not to decide compassionate appointments or de‑categorization benefits. The impugned order dated 16.09.2019 was passed strictly in accordance with rules and after due application of mind. Therefore, the reliefs claimed by the applicant are untenable and the Original Application should be dismissed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. By w