JAK, J v. P. No

counsel for the Petitioner: SRr G.RAMESH, REp. sRr NARENDAR JALL| Counsel for the Respondents: SRI p.SRl HARSHA REDDY, Stl FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI U/RIT PETITION No.275L2 of 2OLS ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief ". . . to issue a utit Order or Direction more particularlg one in the noture of Wit of Mandamus declaing the decision of respondents in issuing proceedings Ref:CRP/ MED/ C/ 049/ 4905, Dt. 1 I . I 1 .2014 uithout ang medical examinotion or clinical tests found the petitioner 'fit for dutg and to be engoged on surface on light duties' till superannuation, therebg issuing the proceedings Ref:RG.I/ Gdk.l 1/ 2O15/ P-2/ 852 Dt.03.03.2015 of the 4th Respondent for remoual of the petitioner's name from the on rolls both proceedings were serued on 16.06.2O15 utithout ang notice amounts to forcible retirement u.tith a uieu to depiue the dependent employment to the petitioners familg members as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure enuisaged under the guidelines/ rules, unconstitutional, uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, unilateral and consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as unrtt for dutg, and fur\her direct them to pag all the seruice, attendant benefits attached to the post of the petitioner on expiry of special leaue dated 12.04.2014 till the d.ate of remoual from the rolls under the rules, schemes eisting in the respondents Compony and. pass such other order or orders..-" 2 JAK, J W.t.No.275l2 of 2015 t'

2. Heard Mr. G.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Mr. Jalli Narender, Iearned counsel for pt:titioner and Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company limited for respond:nts.

3. Brief facts: Petitioner joined services of respondent company on

08.09.1981. In the year 2014, petitioner suffertd with Acute Infarct B/L Superofronto parietal lobe (brain strlke). Ex.P1 is the MRI scan report. Ex.P2 is the discharge card, dated

15.O4.2O14, issued by Singareni Collieries Groulr of Hospitals. Petitioner was sanctioned half pay special leave from ll.O4.2ol4 to 1O.7O.2O14. Petitioner was referred to Main Hospital, Kothagudem, by letter dated 27.1O.20 L4 (Ex P3), for further advice and regarding litness for duty. Virle letter dated

11.71.2014 (Ex.P4), Chief Medical Offrcer opined that petitioner is fit for duty, to be engaged on surface, on light duties until superannuation. Petitioner retired from service on 3 JAK, J w.P.No.27S l2 of 20 l5 attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015 (i.e., at 60 years).

3.1 Petitioner's main contention is that he was not put medical examination, there were no tests are conducted, except for physical examination and that letter, dated 11.11.2O14, is not in accordance with the regulation(s). That petitioner seryices were terminated to deny the benefit(s) of dependent employment to his family members and cause monetary loss under various heads. That benefits to be accrued to the petitioner are denied.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was forced to retire vide proceedings dated 03.03.2015 (Ex.P5). It is further submitted that petitioner made an application in 2013 to authorities for dependent employment to one family member and the same is not considered. It is also submitted that in 2014, petitioner suffered a stroke (brain stroke) and got admitted in a private hospital, that doctors referred him to Area Hospital, Ramagundam. 1 JAK, J N.P.No.275l2 of 2Ol5

4.1 It is submitted that petitioner took tre.rtment in Area Hospital, Ramagundam for a period of one month and upon the advice of doctors at Ramagundam Hospital, he was referred to the Main Hospital, Kothagudem.

4.2 It is submitted that petitioner was grzLnted Half Pay Special L,eave, as he suffered brain stroke and was unable to move from bed. It is lurther submitted that in spite of the requests of petitioner to forward a letter l rom the Main Hospital, Kothagudem, to the Area Hospital, Ramagundam, hospital authorities caused a delay of sev:n months in forwarding the letter. It is also submitted that petitioner is not granted retirement benefits, except Coal Mine l)rovident Fund and gratuity and other incidental benefits accrued to petitioner for entire service are not paid.

4.3 It is submitted that letter, dated 03.O3.20 .5 (Ex.p5), was issued removing the name of petitioner fror n the rolls of respondent Company without any notice. That it amounts to forceful retirement, to deprive dependent emp oyment to his 5 JAK, J W.P.No.275l2 of 2015 family member(s). That letter dated 03.03.2015 (Ex.PS) IS illegal, arbitrary and against the guidelines of the respondent Company. It is further submitted that a unilateral decision, without payment of any benehts, is improper and proceedings issued are in disregard to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court (violative of principles of natural justice).

4.4 It is pointed out that by proceedings dated 11.11.2014 (Ex.Pa), Chief Medical Ofhcer opined that petitioner is fit for duty, to be engaged on surface, on light duties until superannuation. That proceedings are without proper medical examination, but are on the basis of physical examination only and hence, proceedings cannot be considered. It is further pointed out that petitioner served for 32 years and is forced to retire by letter dated 03.03.2015 (Ex.PS). That both proceedings served on 16.06.2015 are without any notice to petitioner amounting to forceful retirement. It is lastly urged that the unilateral decision of respondent Company is illegal and arbitrary. 6 JAK, J V. P. No.27512 of 2015

5. Learned Standing Counsel for responCent Company submitted that contentions raised by petitionr:r are devoid of merits. It is further submitted that vid,r letter dated 15.03.2014, it was informed to petitioner thiLt he would be attaining the age of superannuation i. e. , 60 years on 22.O3.2015 and consequently would retire frorr the services of respondent Company w.e.f.01.04.2015 (p,rge-25 of the counter affidavit). It is also submitted that 1>y letter dated

27.1O.2O14 (Page-26 of the counter afhdavit), petitioner was referred to Main Hospital, Kothagudem, for furlher advice and for htness for duty. Learned counsel has draw r the attention of this Court to proceedings, dated j.l.ll.2Ol,. (page _ 2Z of the counter affidavit), wherein the Chief Medica. Officer opined that petitioner was frt for duty to be engaged tn surface, on light duties, until superannuation. It is submLtted that vide proceedings dated 18.11.2014, petitioner was informed that he was fit for duty on surface, on light duties, until superannuation. 7 JAK, J W.P.No.2751.2 of 2015

5.1 It is submitted that notice of termination of emploS,,rnent was issued to petitioner on 28.02.2015, by which it was informed that petitioner would retire from services of respondent Company w.e.f. 31.03.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation lon 22.03.2015 (Page-29 of the counter affrdavit)1. It is further submitted that by letter dated

03.03.2015 (Page-3O of the counter afhdavit), it was informed that petitioner's name was being removed from the rolls of company w.e.f. 01.O4.20 15. It is submitted that petiticiner was served a notice well in advance and that there is no merit in the contention that he was not served any notice.

5.2 It is submitted that as per letter, dated 27.10.2014, petitioner was referred to Main Hospital, Kothagudem for further advice and regarding fitness for duty. That perusal of proceedings dated 11,.II.2014 issued by Chief Medical Officer indicates that petitioner was found fit for duty to be engaged on surface on light duties until superannuation (after examination). It is also submitted that on the basis of Chief '/' 8 JAK, J W.P.No.275l2 of 2O 15 Medical Officer examination, petitioner wa ; continued in service and was retired on 31.03.20 15.

5.3 It is submitted that petitioner has not ptaced on record copy of representation(s) made to authorities that this family members should be given dependent employm:nt. That in the absence of such representations, the Court cannot consider the submission made across the Bar by petitioner counsel. It is further submitted that petitioner retired frorn service at 60 years on attaining the age of superannuation rn 31.03.2015. That it was after his retirement, retirement age increased from 60 years to 6l years. It is lastly urged tf at petitioner,s contention to be continued till 6l years is witLout any basis. That the grounds raised by petitioner are devoirl of merits and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. '

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

7. Petitioner was appointed IN respondent Company 08.09.1982. Petitioner suffered a brain str rke, he was '),/.' ,,/, 9 JAK, J W.P.No.27512 of 2O 15 -. paralyzed, was unable to attend the duties and admitted to hospital. Petitioner was diagnosed with acute Infarct B/L superofronto parietal lobe. He was sanctioned half pay special leave from 11.O4.2014 to 10.10.2014. Petitioner received treatment at Area Hospital of Singareni Collieries Company Hospita.l, Ramagundam.

8. Ex.P1 is the MRI scan report of Mahalakshmi, MRI & Diagnostics Private Limited, Karimnagar, dated 07.O4.2O14, the impressions of Radiologist are as under: " 1 . Acute infarcts in grey white matter junction of bilateral superior fronto parietal lobes (predominant in parafalcine location)

2. Mild generalized cerebral atrophy c /w age. 3. T2W FLAIR hyper intensities noted in bilateral fronto- occipital projections, periventricular deep white matter, sub corical white matter and centrum-semiovale F/S/O Extensive small .vessel Ischemic changcs -D /D demyelinating disorders / leukodystrophies. "

9. Ex.P2 is the discharge card bearing No.1693 issued by Singareni Collieries Group of Hospitals. The date of admission IS 71.O4.2O14, date of discharge is 15.04.2014. Ex.P3 is l0 JAK, J W P. No.27512 of 2015 issued by Depuly Chief Medical Ofhcer (Admi ristration), Area Hospital, Ramagundam, dated 27.lO.2Ol4.I is stated that petitioner is sick since 12.04.2014 and availer[ 6 months half pay special leave under NCWA. It is also state([ that petitioner was being referred to Main Hospital, KothagurCem for further advice and management and regarding fitness br duty.

10. Ex.P4 is the reference of Chief Medical Officer of Singareni Collieries Main Hospital, Koth rgudem dated 11.11.2014. It is observed from releren,:e letter that petitioner's case is a case of CVA with act te infarct B / L superofronto parietal lobe and that he rep orted at Main Hospital, Kothagudem on 1O.Ll.2Ol4 and was examined and found ht for duty to be engaged on surface tn light duties until superannuation. These facts are borne br record.

11. On a perusal of Exs.pl , p2, p3 and p4, it is observed that petitioner suffered brain stroke (paralysis) rnd underwent treatment. Contentions advanced by learne I counsel for petitioner that petitioner should have been put _o further tests .,/,,, II JAK, J W.P.No.275l2 of 20I5 for concluding his fitness cannot be upheld. It is for the Chief Medical Ofhcer to conclude whether such tests are required. This Court cannot strike off the version of Chief Medical Officer in his reference dated Il.Ll.2Ol4. It is the opinion of an expert in the concerned field, having examined the petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer found the petitioner ht for duty to be engaged on surface on light duties till superannuation. It is the opinion of Chief Medical officer whether to send petitioner for tests/examinations or not which has to prevail, this Court cannot disturb the opinion of an expert.

12. The contention that petitioner was not served any notice and was forcefully retired on 31.03.2015 denying the benehts to his family members is based on sandy foundation. Letter dated 15.03.2014 lPage-25 of counter affidavit) addressed by Manager, GDK 11 Incline, to petitioner is an advance intimatjon about the due date of retirement, said letter is acknowledged in Telugu. ;l t2 JAK, J W-P.No.27512 of 2015

13. Reference dated 28.02.2015 is notice o'termination of employment to petitioner. It is stated that pet tioner would be attaining the age of superannuation on 22.0i.2015 and that as per clause 4 of the Retirement Rules, F etitioner would retire from services on 31.03,2015. It is furth,:r stated in the said letter that petitioner was directed to apprcach the Welfare Officer to submit an application for payment of gratuity and refund of coal mine provident fund accumulations and other entitlements and grant of actual fare of the clas.s for his family as per TA Rules of the company. Reference da:ed 03.03.2015 is an intimation to petitioner that he would L,e retiring from service on 31.03.2015 and that his name wot.ld be removed from the rolls of company w.e.f. 01.04.2015.

14. On perusal of the reference, dated 2g.02.2015, this Court does not find any inhrmity in the said relerence, as it is an intimation with respect to retirement date and receipt of benefits. The said intimation appears to be normal procedure adopted. There is no infirmity in the refi:rence, dated 03.03.2015, where it is stated that petitioner,s r ame would be t3 JAK, J W. P. No.27512 of 2015 removed from the rolls of company w.e.f. 01.04.2015, as petitioner would be retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015. This Court does not find favour with the arguments advanced by petitioner counsel across the Bar that removal of petitioner,s name from the rolls of company is illegal.

15. It is submitted that petitioner was granted coal mine provident fund only. That other benefits such as gratuity and attendant benefrts were not granted. Interests of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to make a representation with regard to the benefits which are due to him as claimed such as gratuity and other benefits. On receipt of the representation of petitioner, respondent authorities shall consider the representation and if any of the benefits are not sanctioned as claimed, the same shall be ascertained and paid, if any benehts are due. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of representation. It is made clear that if petitioner is l4 JAK, J w.P.No.275l2 of 2015 paid all the benefits, he would obviously be nc t entitled to any benehts, petitioner shall be intimated

16. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if iLny, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAKSHMI ,aqsribTANT REGTSTRAR To,

3. The Chairman and Managing pirector, Singareni Collier es Company Limited, Corporate Office, Hyderabad. becrroru oFFlcER 1,i The Director (Personal & Administration), The Singarerri Collieries Company Limited. Kothagudem, Khammam District. The General Manager, Ramagundam Area-1, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. The Collieries Manager, GDK '1 1A lncline, RG-l Area Tl-'e Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godawarikhani, Karimnagar District.

7. One CC to SRI NARENDAR JALLI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] Two CD Copies w BSR KKS \ HIGH COURT JAK,J DATED:2010112025 ORDER WP.No.27512 ot 2015 \_ /. J L) t) 11 JtJl, 20m D,- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS -Ca

4. ff6'e