LAWS(APH)-2011-10-37

J V SUBBA RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 12, 2011
J. V. SUBBA RAJU Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners joined as Constables in the Railway Protection Force (for short 'Force'), South Central Railway, at various point's of time. Out of them, the 1st petitioner was promoted as Head Constable. All of them were declared medically unfit to hold the respective posts between 2003 and 2008. The Rules framed by the Indian Railways provided for de-categorization of employees of any particular category on medical grounds and for provision of alternative employment in the Railway Protection Force. The petitioners contend that after they were de-categorized by the Force, they are being assigned duties in various offices without permanent absorption. The office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad, the 5th respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 10-11-2008, communicating that the petitioners would be subjected to re-medical examination. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said proceedings. Another grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being extended the benefit of promotion, which their juniors in the Force are extended from time to time.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter - affidavit is filed. Since the relevant information was not contained in it, this Court directed the General Manager, South Central Railway, to apprise this Court about the nature of implementation of the scheme of rehabilitation of de-categorized members of Force. The Additional Divisional General Manger filed a detailed counter - affidavit with supporting documents. The purport of the scheme for rehabilitation of de-categorized persons is mentioned in detail. It is stated that the impugned proceedings, dated 10-11-2008 were issued strictly in terms of Rule 522(2)(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM). He further stated that the cases of the petitioners would be considered as and when their turn comes.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.