UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the Union of India/employer against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 23.4.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 2.7.2015; whereby the courts below have directed the appellant/employer to provide the employee/respondent/plaintiff with an alternative job either in the Railway Protection Force or in the Railways and to pay full wages to the plaintiff from 1992 onwards as per the Railways rules alongwith all consequential reliefs on the same post which he was holding at the time of illness till the time he is given alternative job alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on outstanding dues.

(2.) The case as set up by the respondent/plaintiff was that he had taken medical leaves originally from 20.2.1992 to 5.3.1992 but on account of his medical condition he could not report for duty and ultimately reported for duty on 8.6.1992 when he was referred to the Senior Medical Superintendant at Delhi. The Senior Medical Superintendant vide his Certificate dated 12.8.1992 certified that respondent/plaintiff is permanently medically unfit for the duties of the original post, and therefore, respondent/plaintiff should be provided suitable alternative employment as per para 573 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 1981 inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff is fit in category B -1. Respondent/plaintiff thereafter, as per the case in the plaint, regularly approached the authorities and sought alternative employment but was not successful and hence the present suit was filed. Paras 3 and 10 of the plaint would be relevant with respect to the argument of limitation which is now urged on behalf of the appellant no.1/Union of India for the first time in this Court, and therefore, these paras are reproduced as under: -

(3.) Both the courts below have decreed the suit by observing that once the Senior Medical Superintendant by his Certificate dated 12.8.1992 recommended that respondent/plaintiff was unfit for the original job, but since he was fit for alternative employment in B -1 category, he should be given alternative employment, and hence the appellants have seriously erred in not granting the respondent/plaintiff alternative employment. As regards the documents being the Letter dated 13.5.1996 (Ex.PW1/8 and also Ex.DW1/2), Letter dated 17.5.1996 (Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.PW1/7), and Letter dated 17.6.1993 (Ex.DW1/1), the courts below have held that in none of these letters it is found that the respondent/plaintiff was at all asked by the appellants to appear for the alternative job, and therefore, appellants/employer cannot contend that respondent/plaintiff failed to take any alternative employment in spite of being asked to do so. The relevant paras of the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.4.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 2.7.2015 are paras 9 and 7 respectively, and which read as under: - Para 9 of the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.4.2012