Shyam Lal v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

   

     





 !"#$%"&'('#)*+,+(!

-


 



 
 




 

 

 *  ./  0 1  


2"(")!



 






 
!
"#
$ %
 33333
 

-0

/


 
inter alia





#


 

& 

'!
! 
 



() ,*,*
- /((0
 
1

2 ,
 !
# 





1
#!
 !


 

 3 
1

 

 
4
 






 ! 
 
 /(5


&
 
-  0
 
,*(6 ,  
 
1 7!



#







,( *5 (++(
# 

 

#




& 7


 
,***
8
(* *9 ,*((

1
+:(* **






# 

     

 
 
; 

#

&

  
 




 #
 


  
 




*, *< ,*(,
- /(0
#
 
1
=
> 


 






1



  



(, *, ,*(,
- /,:"0

# 


 
:
 



 #
 



7



>#
8  
 
 7
 .

 
  
 
 7

%>
 7


#


 





 
1
 
2 ,

5
7!


;
 
1

  




 




  



() *5 ,*,*
- /90
1

#

# 
;
 

2 ,/ $


 
=
?
@#  

7 

2 5/" $ 
 


8 
 7

 









 


2 5
 
!  



() ,*,*
- /((0
# 1
 





#




1 !






 3 
1

 

 
4
 

1





 ! 
 

ibid

2
#


#
 
 >

 





  
 


 
>
 
  



 #






4
4

55#!+  6 7"2(+( 1! !" #$  28 )  )% #!5"2(
 
# 
1
 # 
>

 
  


>



 


#




1

  




 

# !







 

 










# 

 

(* *9 ,*((

#




1


1 / 
#!


1:

; 
!
 


55#!+ 6.(& ("(+92
  



 
 

 *

A4.

In the return, stand taken by the defence is that since the petitioner failed to submit his disability certificate from the date he met with the accident in the month of January 2014, and therefore, it was not possible for the competent authority to decide the benefits from that date including the payment of salary for the period from 01.02.2014 when petitioner was undergoing the treatment and was unable to report for duty. Though the conceded case is that owing to the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he could not even work after 2017, but salary was

released after verification of his medical records and the delay in verification is attributed to the petitioner, and therefore, he was not paid salary from January 2014 till May 2017. Having perused the record, the defence taken by the respondents flies in the face of Rule 19 of the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016, which is as below:+ "
 

  

         The appointing authority shall have power to require a Government employee to appear before a medical board to test his physical fitness for the efficient discharge of the duties of his post, whenever, it has reason to believe that the Government employee is not physically fit to carry out his duties satisfactorily.

 
─ The entire expenditure of medical examination including travelling allowance shall be reimbursable/borne by the Government. The prescribed fee shall also be refunded, if the Government employee is found fit for further service.

  ─ If the Government employee is not found fit for his duties by the competent medical authority, his case shall be considered under section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)."

5.

Perusal of the above leaves no ambiguity that it is a duty casted upon the competent authority though it is worded as "power" by exercising which he can ask a Government employee to appear before a medical Board to test his physical fitness and if found not fit for duties, then only the case is to be considered under Section 47 of the Act of 1995. What thus, emerges is that the statutory benefits envisaged under Section 47 bid, all the special increments are to be duly accorded but only upon appointing authority verifying the medical condition of an employee by making employee appear before a medical Board. In this aspect, even Rule 19 does not really make it mandatory on the part of the appointing authority.

It simply vests him with the power that in case, he is not satisfied with the medical record of the petitioner, he shall, in that case, require the Government employee to appear before the medical Board. Be that as it may, even the defence that the petitioner did not submit his medical record/ disability has also been taken in the cavalier and nonchalant manner inasmuch as vide letter dated 18.04.2014 (Annexure P+6) duly endorsed in the office of Tehsildar, where the petitioner was working, it was intimated that he is undergoing medical treatment and/ or on that time was in Coma due to the accident which occurred on 02.01.2014. The receipt of that leave application is not disputed as same is duly endorsed as Sr. No.495 DK dated 18.04.2014. That apart vide certificate dated 09.04.

issued by Senior Consultant, Neuro Surgery Artemis Health Institute, Gurgaon was also submitted which states in as many words that patient is unconscious and is likely to need long term medicalmanagement and nursing care. It is rather intriguing that the competent authority instead discharging its duty and/ or as the Rule envisages, exercising its power to constitute a medical Board, the petitioner is rather being held responsible for not taking steps to inform the Department. Clearly, the shoe is on the other foot B

< >

  
! 
 



() ,*,*
- /((0





 







 
#
  !
  
C
1
.

 !

# 

 

(+



&
 
 
,*(6



 
 

! 
 





 

 


 

7 
1;






  
C




1 





.

1
 
 







1





>
   
C


 


# 

 

,
 




1




#





#







>
   
C


 


# 

 



#
1
 



D
  
 
  
# 

#



  



 





 ' 


1





 

 $ 

 !

!
  -0




 
 


 


 +,+(!

-







 7!:  
:2


  1 
:2