JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The present case depicts a most unfortunate state of affairs for which
the petitioner having no fault on his part had to suffer because of indifferent
altitude on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner was working in
Central Industrial Security Force. He, while participating in an official game at
Durgapur, sustained injury. He was hospitalized and thereafter he was examined
by the Medical Board where he was declared invalid for service. The authority
now contends that there is no provision for his rehabilitation as earlier circular
for rehabilitation has been revoked. Hence the writ petitioner is entitled, of his
Provident Fund and Gratuity for the period he was working in the organization.
(2.) Stand of the respondent authority cannot be conceived of.The writ
petitioner participated in an official game meaning thereby he was on duty. He
sustained injury during that period. It is nobody's case that such injury was due
to his fault. Hence, I do not find any reason why the respondent authority would
not take responsibility for his rehabilitation.
(3.) On the last occasion, I directed the respondent authority to file an
affidavit with regard to rehabilitation and compensation. To that, affidavit has
been filed stating that since the petitioner did not challenge the order of the
Medical Board and since there is no provision for rehabilitation in the present
rule the petitioner's prayer can not be acceded to. I am unable to accept the
contention of the respondent to the extent where the respondent contended
that petitioner should have challenged the Medical Board opinion.The petitioner
admittedly sustained physical injury and Medical Board declared him unfit for
service. There is no scope to challenge the Medical Boards opinion as according
to him he had suffered injury. Only question remains that how he has to be
rehabilitated and or compensated.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.