Compensations Sought after being Superannuated are Invalid

Mahinder Singh vs. AIIMS and Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Mahinder Singh
Respondent: AIIMS and Ors
Citation: 2004 VI AD (Delhi) 518
Court:In the High Court of Delhi
Judge:Manmohan Sarin

Facts

Mahinder Singh was employed as a Pump Operator with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He joined AIIMS in the year 1965. In the year 1979, while on duty he suffered serious injuries, which resulted in his left leg being amputated from below the knee; because of which an artificial leg had to be fixed. According to him, in the year 2000 he got a septic infection in the leg, which was then completely amputated. He was certified to be having 80% disability.

Mahinder then asked for retirement on medical grounds. The Medical Board examined him and his disability at 80%. They also opined that his condition was not likely to change and no re-assessment was recommended. However, the Board submitted that he could be permitted to retire on medical grounds at his own request. It was also stated by one of the members of the Board that no one from his family could be given a job in lieu of his retirement.

Mahinder was aggrieved by this statement, which he said had been made by Dr. Sharma of the Medical Board. According to Mahinder it was not Dr. Sharma’s domain to consider whether Mahinder’s family member could be given employment or not. He added that the doctor could only give his medical opinion while the competent authority should have considered the claim for compassionate appointment. Mahinder’s lawyer also submitted that with 80% disability he was entitled to retirement on medical grounds.

Furthermore, it was urged that he had a young unmarried daughter and he was anxious to settle her in life. Another point that was raised by the lawyer was that AIIMS was adopting a policy of pick and choose. He relied on the case of Mr. Prakash Chand who it was claimed, was an alcoholic with the disability being partly self-induced and who was permitted to retire and employment was given to his son even though the other members of the family were also employed.

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of AIIMS where they denied that Mahinder had suffered from an accident at the time of duty. It was further stated that he had been put on light duty where he was not required to move. He had been discharging his duties and his condition did not justify retirement on medical grounds. With respect to the case of Mr. Prakash Chand, it was stated that this case was not comparable to Mahinder’s case.

This was because even though Prakash Chand had a disability of 80%, his was a case of cerebellar ataxia with gross incordination of all four limbs and trunk due to neurological problems. He required an attendant and was unable to perform his duties. Because of these reasons, he was retired on medical grounds and his son was given employment in lieu of his retirement.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments extended by both the parties. The Court drew attention to the fact that Mahinder had been appointed in the year 1965 and he suffered from an accident in the year 1979. He sought retirement after nearly 21 years, when he was approaching the age of superannuation. The Court held that Mahinder already stood superannuated on 31.07.2004 i.e. before the petition was filed.

The relief being sought by him therefore became invalid. The Court also held that apart from this, even though Mahinder had a disability of 80%, the nature of disability was such that he could discharge his duties and he had also been put on light duties. When he was approaching the age of superannuation, he could not seek retirement on medical grounds so as to seek compassionate appointment for his son.

In view of this, the Court held that Mahinder was not entitled to the relief he sought. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950