Full Judgment
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI WP(S)No.1139of2006 AwadhKumarSingh ... Petitioner Versus CentralCoalfieldsLtd.andors. ... ... Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.R.Anand FortheRespondents :Mr.AK.Mehta 1130.7.2013 Herdlearnedcounselfortheparties.
2. The petitioner has sought quashing of a letter dated 20th August,2005,Annexure16,wherebytherespondentshaverefusedthe claimofthepetitionerforpaymentof IOD(injuryonduty)wages.He hasfurtherprayedforadirectiontothe respondentstorelease IOD wagesfortheperiodfrom14thMay,2003to28thFebruary,2005.
3. Thematterwasheardonthelastoccasionandtherespondents were directed to bring on record any document in support of their statementsmadeinthecounteraffidavitthatafterbeingdeclaredfit the petitioner had resumed duty on 14th May,2003. For better appreciation,theorderdated1.4.2013isquotedhereinbelow:
1. 4.2013 The respondents have appeared and objectedtheclaimofthepetitionerforgrantofinjuryon duty wages (IOD Wages)beyond 14th May,2003 on the groundthatthepetitionerhadhimselfresumeddutyon 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 beyondthatperiod. Counselforthepetitioner,however,submitsthat 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.Itisthecontentionofthepetitionerthathehas thereafter been granted alternative duty as a fitter sinceOctober,2005,therefore,hesoughtIODwagesfrom 12thMay,2003to28thFebruary,2005when,accordingto him,heproceededtoresumedutyasperAnnexure15to thewritapplication. Thestandoftherespondentsthathewasdeclared fiton14thMay,2003doesnotappeartobesupportedby any document, which has been brought on record. However,counselfortherespondentCCLisallowedtime toshowanysuchdocument/opinionofMedicalBoardby whichtheyhavetakenadecisionnottoallowIODwages tothepetitionerfortheperiodbeyond14thMay,2003. Listthiscaseafterthreeweeks.
2. 4. Asupplementarycounteraffidavithasbeenfiledonbehalfof the respondents on 15.4.2013 after the aforesaid order enclosing a medicalcardofthepetitioner,whichincludeshistoryoftreatmentof theinjurycausedtohimon6.3.2003.Fromperusalofthetreatment card,itappearsthaton12.5.2003thedoctoradvised(1)mayresume duty, (2) constant support and exercise and (3) also advised some medicineforaperiodofsevendays.Thedoctoradvisedreviewaftersix weeks.
5. Thepetitionerresumeddutyon14.5.2003.But,accordingtothe 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 petitionerwasgivenworkofFittersinceOctober,2005andsincethen hehadbeenworkingasFitterinsteadofdumperdrivertowhichpost heoriginallybelonged.
6. Learnedcounselforthepetitioner,therefore,submitsthatinthe wakeofsuchfacts,thepetitionerhadactuallyneverattendedhisduty and had been advised to undergo treatment at CMCH Vellore in January,2005.Eventhereafter,keepingintoregardhisrequestandthe factthathecouldnotperformhispreviousduty,hehadbeengranted alternate duty of fitter since October,2005. Therefore, for the period from 12th May,2003 to 28th February,2005 when he was recommendedtoCMCHVellore,heshouldbepaidIODwagesbythe respondents.
7. CounselforthepetitionerdrawingtheattentionoftheCourtto Annexure 3 dated 7.6.2003 submits that the Project Officer Rohini ProjectofCClrequestedtheAreaMedicalOfficer,RegionalHospital NKDakratoexaminehiscaseandmakehimfitwhenheisfittodrive thedumper.Inthecircumstances,learnedcounselforthepetitioner submitsthathewasnotfullyfittodrivethedumper,videadvice 3. reportgivenbythetreatingDoctor.Annexure3tothewritpetitionas alsoAnnexure12alsoshowsthattheAreaProjectOfficeraswellasthe MedicalBoardhadadvisedhimforfurthertreatment.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent CCL, on the other hand, submitsthatoncehehasbeendeclaredfitbythetreatingdoctoron 12.5.2003thepetitionerhasresumeddutyon14.5.2003.Thereafterhe rescued himself from performing the job of dumper driver complaininghewasnotfullyfit.Hecontinuedtodothejobofdumper drivertill31.5.2003andthereafteronhiscomplaint,theAreaProject 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 respondentDepartment.Insuchcircumstances,whileremainingidle forsuchalongperiod,thepetitionerisnotentitledforpaymentof IOD wages.
9. Havingheardlearned counselfor theparties,thefactsof the case,whichareenumeratedhereinaboveshowthatafterthepetitioner hadsustainedcertaininjuryon6.3.2003 hehadbeentreatedbythe MedicalOfficerofthecompany.Afterundergoingsuchtreatmenton 12.5.2003 he was advised to resume duty. The petitioner in fact remainedondutyfrom14.5.2003to31.5.2003asadumperdriverand thereafterhestartedcomplainingtotheAreaProjectOfficerthatheis notfullyrecovered.Insuchcircumstances,hewasreferredtotheArea MedicalOfficervideletterdated7.6.2003,Annexure3. TheMedical BoardhasexaminedhiminFebruary2005.Thereisnoexplanationon behalfofthepetitionerfortheentireperiodthereafteri.e.fromJune, 2003tillFebruary,2005whyhehasworked.Thereafter,itappearsthat thepetitionerhadundergonecertaintreatmentatC.M.C.H.Vellore 4. andonhisrequesthehasbeengivenalternatejoboffitter.Thesefacts therefore,showthatthepetitionerafterhavingbeendeclaredfithas performedhisdutyforafortnightandthereafterheremainedidlefora period from June, 2003 to February 2005. From Annexure7 dated 3.6.2004itappearsthatthepetitionerissaidtohavebeenexamined by the Medical Hospital at the Central Hospital ,CCL, Gandhinagar, whohadadvisedhimcertainmedicineandrecommendednodutytill suchperiodofmedicineonly.TheMedicalBoardadviceafteralong period of time in February,2005 does not otherwise entitle the petitioner to claim injury on duty wages for the whole period. The petitionerhad,asaforesaid,infactresumedhisdutyon14.5.2003after beingdeclaredfit.Itisalsothecaseoftherespondentsthathehas been paid his bills for medical treatment as per the policy of the respondents. In such circumstances, therefore, the respondents' refusalofgrantofIODwagesforaperiodform14.5.2003to28.2.2005 doesnotappeartobesufferingfromanyerroroffactandlaw.
10. Insuchcircumstances,thepetitionerhasfailedtomakeoutany groundforinterferenceinthematter.Thewritpetitionis,accordingly, dismissed. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey