High Court Kerala High Court

Vittala Shenoy (Retired Ld … vs Principal Secretary on 17 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Vittala Shenoy (Retired Ld … vs Principal Secretary on 17 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33472 of 2006(I)


1. VITTALA SHENOY (RETIRED LD COMPILER),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :17/02/2009

 O R D E R
                       T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        W.P.(C). No.33472/2006-I
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is seeking for invalid pension. He joined as

L.D.Compiler on 12/12/1977 under the second respondent-Director of

Economics and Statistics, Thiruvananthapuram. Because of mental

depression and ill health initially he availed eligible leave. Later on, he

entered on leave without allowance on 14/11/1982 on medical grounds and

leave was granted for 23 months from 14/11/1982 as per Ext.P1 order. This

was extended upto 15/04/1990 on medical grounds as per G.O.(Rt).

No.501/89/Plg, dated 25/10/1989. He was under treatment in the Santhigiri

Ashram and Medical College, Pothencode, Thiruvananthapuram. Later on,

he filed an application for extension of leave and sanction of invalid

pension. By Ext.P2, the second respondent requested the Director of Health

Services to obtain the final recommendation of the Medical Board on the

question for granting invalid pension. As per Ext.P3 letter, the petitioner

was requested to appear before the Medical Board for examination and on

08/02/1991 he was examined by the Board. Ext.P4 shows that the Medical

Board examined the petitioner and issued medical certificate stating that the

W.P.(C) No.33472/2006
-:2:-

petitioner is completely and permanently incapacitated for further services

of any kind in the Department to which he belongs in consequence of

Chronic Schizophrenia and he will develop irregular and intemperate habits.

2. The petitioner has relied on Rule 42(1) and 42(2) of Part III

KSR wherein in support of his case it is stated as follows:-

“42(1) Where the Government/pension

sanctioning authority have/has reason to believe that an

employee is suffering from a contagious disease, or

physical or mental disability or infirmity which in

their/its opinion interferes with the efficient discharge of

his duties, they/it may direct him to undergo medical

examination by a Medical Board or Medical Officer with

a view to ascertain whether he may be retired from

service on invalid pension.

42(2) An invalid pension shall be granted to an

employee who, having appeared on the directions of the

Government/pension sanctioning authority under sub-

rule (1) or on his own application, before a duly

constituted Medical Board or Medical Officer, is

certified by such Medical Board or Medical Officer to be

W.P.(C) No.33472/2006
-:3:-

permanently incapacitated by a contagious disease or

physical or mental disability or infirmity for the public

service or for the particular branch of it to which he

belongs.”

3. According to the petitioner, the above provisions have been

strictly followed, but further actions were not taken. Due to the delay in the

matter, he again filed Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent.

By Ext.P6 he was given a reply to the effect that the petitioner has not been

sanctioned his leave and he was further directed to produce the medical

certificate stating the date from which he became invalid to sanction

pension. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. In the meanwhile he

retired from service on 31/10/2005.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the stand

taken is that the petitioner has not forwarded Ext.P4 medical certificate

issued by the Medical Board to the Director of Economics and Statistics at

the relevant point of time. It is, therefore, submitted that action could not be

taken in the absence of medical certificate. In paragraph (3) of the reply

affidavit it is stated that normally, the Medical Board will issue the

certificate of the examination of a mental patient to the Director of Health

Services who in turn might have forwarded it to the second respondent.

W.P.(C) No.33472/2006
-:4:-

5. The stand taken, therefore, that the medical certificate did not

reach the Director of Health Services cannot be said to be correct. But as on

today, the respondents have not explained as to whether the certificate was

received from the Medical Board or not.

6. Even though this Court, on 25/11/2008, specifically directed

the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the second

respondent as to whether the petitioner had made available the original of

Ext.P4 or whether it was directly received by him from the Medical Board,

the affidavit filed does not show any of those aspects.

7. Therefore, the matter has to be considered with the aid of

available materials. In the statement filed on behalf of the Director of

Health Services dated 10/02/2009 it is admitted that after examination of

each candidates, the Medical Examination Report is directly send by post to

the offices from where request was received to conduct Medical

Examination.

8. Therefore, in normal circumstances, the Medical Certificate

should have reached the concerned office. Merely because the petitioner

has relied on Ext.P4, the respondents cannot take a stand that the application

for pension cannot be considered in the absence of the certificate.

W.P.(C) No.33472/2006
-:5:-

9. Even now, the statement filed on behalf of the Director of

Health Services does not throw any light on the original of Ext.P4.

Therefore, his case can be considered in the light of Ext.P4 produced herein.

10. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for grant of invalid pension in the light of

Ext.P4 certificate and as per Rule 42 of Part III KSR. Appropriate orders

shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of

this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along

with a copy of this writ petition before the respondents for compliance.

Petitioner will be offered an opportunity to produce fresh materials if any.

If a further medical examination is needed, before passing orders, he will be

given due intimation.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms