RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:
1. Heard Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL as well as Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG-II for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4208 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the writ application preferred by the writ-petitioner/appellant against the letter dated 08.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5 declaring the writpetitioner medically unfit for appointment has been dismissed.
3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the mother of the writ-petitioner namely, Malti Devi was an employee of respondent-CCL designated as Cat-I under Rajrappa Area and she died during her service tenure on 16.05.2020. The writpetitioner on account of the death of her mother had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.06.2020. The said application was considered by the authorities and a conditional appointment letter dated 14.10.2020 was issued which contained several conditions amongst which included the necessity of being found fit on a medical examination conducted by a Medical Officer of the Company. The writ-petitioner was thereafter referred for Internal Medical Examination (IME) at Central Hospital, Naisarai on 22.01.2021 and on examination she was found "Not Fit" for employment as she was suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia, a disease which is progressive in nature. After the writ-petitioner was declared medically unfit she had made a representation dated 11.02.2021 requesting for a re-examination but the same was declined vide letter dated 01.10.2021 citing the relevant provision of the Medical Attendance Rule (MAR). The writpetitioner had again made representation requesting for a review of the earlier decision based on a medical examination conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh but the same was also rejected vide letter dated 08.03.2022. The writ-petitioner had preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 4208 of 2023 challenging the letter of rejection dated 08.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.07.2024 and which is the order impugned to the present Letters Patent Appeal.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant that the act of the respondent-authorities speaks of a discrimination in the sense that the authorities have treated the writ-petitioner to be an appointee through a regular process of appointment having not considered the fact that the writ-petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground. The scheme of compassionate appointment is to equip the dependent of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis and rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the writpetitioner would be an act contrary to the beneficial scheme of such appointment. Mr. Mahato has submitted that the father of the writ-petitioner had predeceased her mother and after the death of her mother she has no one to fall upon to support her financially. It has been submitted that Sickle Cell Anemia is a blood disorder which is a disability incorporated in the schedule of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and, therefore, cannot be discriminated u/s 20 of the said Act with regard to employment.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqH56I2cSsu7bJ8x8m1aX51IEX%2FUxDxdtAIt15botuHLz&caseno=LPA/561/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010294902024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
