DISTRICT COLLECTOR E G Vs. G K JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein while serving as Multipurpose Health Visitor submitted an application on 18-3-1999 to the 2nd petitioner herein seeking voluntary retirement on medical invalidation ground complaining that she is a cardiac patient and she was not in a position to perform regular duties and the field work attached to her post. On the basis of the above application, the first respondent was referred to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital,. Kakinada, who constituted a Medical Board on 22-5-1999 consisting of three Doctors. The Medical Board so constituted issued a certificate on 25-6-1999 certifying that the first respondent is incapacitated permanently due to ischaemic heart disease and she is permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind as a consequence of the said heart disease. As required under the Regulations the matter was referred to the District Level Committee presided over by the District Collector as the Chairman constituted in terms of G.O.Ms. No.214. dated 9-6-1998. The 1st respondent was summoned to appear before the District Level Committee and accordingly she appeared. It appears that to the District Level Committee the first respondent appeared to be healthy and, therefore, the District Level Committee did not recommend for acceptance of the application of the first respondent seeking voluntary retirement on medical invalidation ground. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner by his letter dated 24-1-2000 addressed to the first respondent informed her that her request was negatived by the District Collector and Chairman of the District Level Committee. It is relevant to notice the contents of the said letter. It reads:

(2.) The first respondent being aggrieved by the said communication instituted O.A. No.683 of 2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short). The Tribunal by its order dated 6-3-2000 allowed the O.A., and set aside the impugned proceeding of the 2nd petitioner herein and held that the first respondent herein is entitled to be retired from service on medical invalidation ground in terms of Rule 455 of Annexure-HI to the A.P. Revised Pension Rules. Hence, this writ petition by the State authorities assailing the legality and validity of the above order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the first respondent on her own showing cannot be said to be a person suffering from cardiac disease and this position is abundantly reflected in the certificate issued by one Dr. P. Rangaswamy, M.D., D.M., Cardiologist, Kakinada (a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition at page 26 of the material papers). Learned G.P., also finds fault with the order of the Tribunal contending that the O.A., filed by the first respondent came to be disposed of by the impugned order without proper notice and without proper opportunity to the petitioner-authorities to contest the claim of the first respondent.