Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 917 (JHR)

Awadh Kumar Singh v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2013-07-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Herd learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of a letter dated 20th August, 2005, Annexure16, 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. 3. 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 hereinbelow: “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 .” 4. 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. List this case after three weeks .” 4. 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. 5. The petitioner resumed duty on 14.5.2003. But, according to the petitioner, the Medical Board, vide Annexure 12 dated 15.1.2005, advised alternate duty of three months by referring him to CMCH Vellore for neurosurgical opinion. After returning from Vellore the petitioner was given work of Fitter since October, 2005 and since then he had been working as Fitter in stead of dumper driver to which post he originally belonged. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in the wake of such facts, the petitioner had actually never attended his duty and had been advised to undergo treatment at CMCH Vellore in January, 2005. Even thereafter, keeping into regard his request and the fact that he could not perform his previous duty, he had been granted alternate duty of fitter since October, 2005. Therefore, for the period from 12th May, 2003 to 28th February, 2005 when he was recommended to CMCH Vellore, he should be paid IOD wages by the respondents. 7. Counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure 3 dated 7.6.2003 submits that the Project Officer Rohini Project of CCl requested the Area Medical Officer, Regional Hospital NK Dakra to examine his case and make him fit when he is fit to drive the dumper. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not fully fit to drive the dumper, vide advice report given by the treating Doctor. Annexure 3 to the writ petition as also Annexure 12 also shows that the Area Project Officer as well as the Medical Board had advised him for further treatment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, on the other hand, submits that once he has been declared fit by the treating doctor on 12.5.2003 the petitioner has resumed duty on 14.5.2003. Annexure 3 to the writ petition as also Annexure 12 also shows that the Area Project Officer as well as the Medical Board had advised him for further treatment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, on the other hand, submits that once he has been declared fit by the treating doctor on 12.5.2003 the petitioner has resumed duty on 14.5.2003. Thereafter he rescued himself from performing the job of dumper driver complaining he was not fully fit. He continued to do the job of dumper driver till 31.5.2003 and thereafter on his complaint, the Area Project Officer referred him once again for treatment to the Area Medical Office. In such circumstances, as per the circular prevalent in the respondent-Department, the petitioner could not be granted IOD wages after he was declared fit by the treating doctor of the respondent-CCL and had resumed duty as per the policy of the respondent-Department. In such circumstances, while remaining idle for such a long period, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of IOD wages. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the facts of the case, which are enumerated hereinabove show that after the petitioner had sustained certain injury on 6.3.2003 he had been treated by the Medical Officer of the company. After undergoing such treatment on 12.5.2003 he was advised to resume duty. The petitioner in fact remained on duty from 14.5.2003 to 31.5.2003 as a dumper driver and thereafter he started complaining to the Area Project Officer that he is not fully recovered. In such circumstances, he was referred to the Area Medical Officer vide letter dated 7.6.2003, Annexure3. The Medical Board has examined him in February 2005. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioner for the entire period thereafter i.e. from June, 2003 till February, 2005 why he has worked. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had undergone certain treatment at C.M.C.H. Vellore and on his request he has been given alternate job of fitter. These facts therefore, show that the petitioner after having been declared fit has performed his duty for a fortnight and thereafter he remained idle for a period from June, 2003 to February 2005. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had undergone certain treatment at C.M.C.H. Vellore and on his request he has been given alternate job of fitter. These facts therefore, show that the petitioner after having been declared fit has performed his duty for a fortnight and thereafter he remained idle for a period from June, 2003 to February 2005. From Annexure7 dated 3.6.2004 it appears that the petitioner is said to have been examined by the Medical Hospital at the Central Hospital ,CCL, Gandhinagar, who had advised him certain medicine and recommended no duty till such period of medicine only. The Medical Board advice after a long period of time in February, 2005 does not otherwise entitle the petitioner to claim injury on duty wages for the whole period. The petitioner had, as aforesaid, in fact resumed his duty on 14.5.2003 after being declared fit. It is also the case of the respondents that he has been paid his bills for medical treatment as per the policy of the respondents. In such circumstances, therefore, the respondents' refusal of grant of IOD wages for a period form 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 does not appear to be suffering from any error of fact and law. 10. In such circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.