- (1.) Herd learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of a letter dated 20th August, 2005, Annexure-16, whereby the respondents have refused the claim of the petitioner for payment of IOD (injury on duty) wages. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to release IOD wages for the period from 14th May, 2003 to 28th February, 2005.
(2.) The matter was heard on the last occasion and the respondents were directed to bring on record any document in support of their statements made in the counter affidavit that after being declared fit the petitioner had resumed duty on 14th May, 2003. For better appreciation, the order dated 1.4.2013 is quoted herein-below: 1.4.2013 The respondents have appeared and objected the claim of the petitioner for grant of injury on duty wages (IOD Wages) beyond 14th May, 2003 on the ground that the petitioner had himself resumed duty on being declared fit on 15th May, 2003 after injury sustained by him on 6th March, 2003 and as such, he continued till 31st May, 2003 but is claiming wages beyond that period. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was advised by the Medical Board, vide Annexure 12 dated 15th January, 2005, for alternate duties for three months by referring him to C.M.C.H. Vellore. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has thereafter been granted alternative duty as a "fitter" since October, 2005, therefore, he sought IOD wages from 12th May, 2003 to 28th February, 2005 when, according to him, he proceeded to resume duty as per Annexure 15 to the writ application. The stand of the respondents that he was declared fit on 14th May, 2003 does not appear to be supported by any document, which has been brought on record. However, counsel for the respondent-CCL is allowed time to show any such document/opinion of Medical Board by which they have taken a decision not to allow IOD wages to the petitioner for the period beyond 14th May, 2003. List this case after three weeks.
(3.) A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 15.4.2013 after the aforesaid order enclosing a medical card of the petitioner, which includes history of treatment of the injury caused to him on 6.3.2003. From perusal of the treatment card, it appears that on 12.5.2003 the doctor advised (1) may resume duty, (2) constant support and exercise and (3) also advised some medicine for a period of seven days. The doctor advised review after six weeks.;