(1.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Steno-Typist in the respondent-department on 12.12.1977. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1986. He submitted an application seeking retirement on medical grounds on 20.02.2001. In sequel thereto, the respondent No. 2, i.e., Director General of Police, H.P. sent an intimation to C.M.O., D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 15.05.2001. He was referred to Psychiatrist in I.G.M.C. for expert opinion. He was examined by the Psychiatrist in I.G.M.C., who found that there was "no mental disorder, no psychotropic needed". The Senior Medical Superintendent, I.G.M.C. reported to the Medical Superintendent, D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla on 17.05.2001 that the petitioner was fit for discharging his duties from psychiatric point of view. The opinion of Psychiatrist of I.G.M.C. has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure A-5. Vide letter dated 23.06.2001, the Medical Superintendent, D.D.U. Hospital forwarded the report to respondent No. 2. The opinion of the Medical Board, dated 30.05.2001 is Annexure A-7. Petitioner made a representation against the report on 20.07.2001. The gist of the representation made by the petitioner was that the documents pertaining to his Ayurvedic treatment were not taken into consideration. On 08.11.2001, the Director of Health Services wrote to C.M.O./M.S., D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla to constitute a Medical Board for examining the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was informed by M.S., D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla on 24.12.2001 that no Neurologist or Ayurvedic Medical Officer was available in D.D.U. Hospital or in I.G.M.C., Shimla. Vide letter dated 08.01.2002, the copy of Medical Report, dated 24.12.2001 was forwarded to respondent No. 2. According to this report, the petitioner was found fit for the job. Vide letter dated 17.04.2002, the representation dated 10.07.2002, submitted by the petitioner, was forwarded by respondent No. 2 to the Director Ayurveda for constituting Board of Neurologists for his medical examination. He was examined by the Medical Board constituted at Regional Ayurvedic Hospital, Shimla. The Medical Board issued a certificate on 10.07.2002 (Annexure A-15), according to which, the petitioner was completely and permanently incapacitated to continue with his job. Text of the certificate Annexure A-15 reads thus:
(2.) On 25.07.2002, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 that since he has been declared completely and permanently incapacitated to continue with his job, therefore, he was required to apply for leave and to proceed on leave with immediate effect as per Rule 2 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957. He was also apprised that the matter regarding his unfitness for Government job was being referred to the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Health & family Welfare), Government of H.P., in view of different medical opinions and further action would be initiated on hearing the authorities concerned. Petitioner brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 on 26.07.2002 that the C.C.S. Rules quoted in the memorandum dated 25.07.2002 were not applicable in his case and he must be apprised with respect to the kind of leave to be applied by him and the date of commencement of leave etc.. Petitioner was informed on 14.08.2007 that he could not be put to any government duty and he has been treated on leave w.e.f. 25.07.2002. He was further informed that the matter has been referred to Government vide letter dated 25.07.2002 to constitute a higher medical board to examine him and to finalize his case for retirement on medical grounds. In these circumstances, neither the petitioner was retired prematurely nor was he admitted to invalid pension as per opinion of the Medical Board. He approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 863 of 2003 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was disposed of 21.04.2005. The order dated 21.04.2005 reads thus:
(3.) The respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner on 06.05.2005 that he has been directed to give his willingness for voluntary/pre-mature retirement, whereas he has applied for pre- mature retirement on medical grounds. He was again called upon to give notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules for taking further action. On 07.05.2005, petitioner informed the respondents that he had already submitted his willingness for premature retirement. However, fact of the matter is that vide office order dated 30.05.2005, the petitioner was allowed to be voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31.05.2005. Vide order dated 07.06.2005, the petitioner was granted earned leave of 54 days and extraordinary leave of 942 days on medical grounds. He submitted a detailed representation on 13.06.2005 (Annexure A-26) that order of premature retirement dated 30.05.2005 be amended to premature retirement on medical grounds in view of memorandum dated 25.07.2002 and medical report of Senior Medical Superintendent, D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla, dated 20.11.2004, whereby it was stated that Medical Board constituted at R.A.H., Shimla had declared the petitioner unfit to continue in service w.e.f. 25.07.2002. Petitioner was informed on 02.09.2005 that order dated 30.05.2005, Annexure A-24 has been issued as per the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 21.04.2004. Petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents on 28.05.2006. He has sought modification of order dated 30.05.2005, Annexure A-24 and to issue a revised order of premature retirement on expiry of three months notice on 16.12.2002 and allow arrears of pension to him from 16.03.2002 to 31.05.2002 with interest on delayed payments. Petitioner received the reply to the legal notice on 24.08.2006 alongwith letter of the Secretary (Home), Government of H.P., dated 03.02.2003, whereby certificate dated 10.07.2002, issued by Ayurvedic Doctors was termed as "seems to be invalid". It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Court for the redressal of his grievance.