Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, a Driver in the respondent Corporation, is said to have been suffering from certain serious physical ailments as could be seen from Exhibits P1 to P4 medical records, disabling him from discharging heavy duties as the Driver. Acceding to the request of the petitioner, way back in 2010; the respondent corporation assigned him light duty and kept on extending the period of light duties intermittently, based on the representations made by the petitioner from time to time.
3. Seeking change of category the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P6 medical certificate to the respondent corporation. Initially when no response was forthcoming from the respondent corporation, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Exhibit P7 judgment, through which this Court directed the respondent corporation to consider the case of the petitioner. Eventually through Exhibit P8, the case of the petitioner for change of category was rejected on the ground that Exhibit P6 medical certificate produced by the petitioner did not contain the percentage of disability.
4. Under the circumstances stated above, the petitioner once again approached the Appellate Medical Board under the stewardship of the Director of Health Services, State of Kerala. When he had requested the said Appellate Medical Board to issue another certificate specifying the percentage of disability, it appears that as a matter of procedural requirement, the Board insisted that the petitioner should be referred to the Appellate Board by his employer, i.e. the respondent corporation. To fulfill the said procedural obligation, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibit P10 representation before the respondent corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the extended period of light duty assigned to him is to come to an end by 11th of October 2014. Despite the same, so far the respondent corporation has not disposed of Exhibit P10 representation of the petitioner making a reference to the Appellate Medical Board to enable the petitioner to obtain a proper medical certificate with the percentage of disability duly recorded, so that he could pursue his case further for change of category.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation has submitted that there is an application with specific format to be submitted by the employee seeking change of category along with a medical certificate. Based on the materials thus produced by the employee the corporation would take a decision on the issue of entitlement of the said employee for change of category. According to the learned Standing Counsel, there is no such procedure as referring an employee or workman to a Medical Board.
6. Be that as it may, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, it is evident that beginning from 2010, the respondent corporation has been accommodative enough in assigning light duties to the petitioner, evidently in recognition of his physical ailments. The petitioner cannot be blamed that the Appellate Medical Board insisted on having a reference from the employer. At best, it is only a procedural obligation to be fulfilled by the respondent corporation to ascertain the actual percentage of disability of its own workman so that the issue of change of category could be considered on the basis of proper materials. As such, I do not see any insurmountable impediment coming in the way of the respondent corporation to accede to the request of the petitioner in providing a reference to the Appellate Medical Board. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that beginning from 2010, the petitioner having been assigned light duties, the extended period is to come to an end by 11th of this month.
7. It is desirable in the interest of justice that till the case of the petitioner is considered for the change of category based on the medical certificate to be obtained by the petitioner from the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner shall be continued with light duties.
8. In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent corporation to refer the case of the petitioner to the Appellate Medical Board in terms of Exhibit P10 representation of the petitioner at the earliest point of time. Once such reference is made, the petitioner shall ensure that he gets the disability certificate at the earliest possible time.
9. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel has expressed apprehension that if no time frame is fixed for the petitioner to obtain the Medical Certificate, the issue will be dragged interminably and that in the meanwhile the corporation would be compelled to continue him with light duties, which is against the bipartite settlement, as well as the departmental Regulation. It is not far to visualize the practical difficulties emanating from such a situation.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court directs that the petitioner shall obtain the medical certificate from the Appellate Medical Board within two months after reference from the respondent corporation. For any unavoidable circumstances, not in the control of the petitioner, if he could not obtain the certificate within the stipulated two months' time, it is open for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondent corporation seeking extension of time. Thus, it is further made clear that till the respondent corporation completes the exercise of considering the case of the petitioner for the change of category based on the medical certificate to be produced by the petitioner, he shall be continued with light duties.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-