Dharmatma Singh vs General Manager, N E Rly

(Reserved on 10.08.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench
Allahabad

Original Application No. 468 of 2018

th
Pronounced on 27 day of August, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)


Dharmendra Singh, a/a 47 years, S/o late Ram Shanker Singh, Kantawala
(Medically de-categorized attached with Operating to work as Office Clerk),
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
NE Railway, Varanasi, permanent R/o Village-Nasopur Omapur, Distt. Mau,
UP
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Uma Shankar Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, H.
Q’s Office, Gorakhpur
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, DRM’s Office, Varanasi
3. Senior Divisional Operating Manager/DOM, N.E. Railway, DRM’s
Office, Varanasi
4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, NE Railway, DRM’s Office, Varanasi
5. DR. Memuna Bahadur, Eye Specialist, Medical Director of Dr. Bhim
Rao Ambedkar, Central Railway Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai
6. Sr. Divisional Medical Officer (Admn.) of the office of Chief Medical
Superintendent,N.E. Railway,Divi.Hospital,Varanasi.
.... Respondents
By Advocate: Pramod Kumar Rai

O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard, Shri Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents
at the time of hearing.
Page 1 of 12

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
a ) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned order passed by the Sr. DMO (Admn.), North
Eastern Railway, Varanasi dated 26.5.2017, being based on
questionable two colour vision testing reports of same date of
11.3.2014 of UBMI / Mumbai obtained through respondent No. 5 as it
was a suspected and not an established case of malingering under
Para 512 (2) sub-para (ii) of Indian Railway Medical Manual -2000.
b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass suitable order /
direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to consider to post on the suitable
alternative equivalent grade & post even as of clerk Grade Pay Rs.
1900 in terms of Para 512 (2) sub-para (ii) of Indian Railway Medical
Manual -2000 and not in a lower grade pay & post.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
c) Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be issued.
d) Award cost in favour of the applicant.

3. The case of the applicant lies in a narrow compass. The father
of the applicant, while working as a Head Clerk, died in harness on
15.11.2000. Subsequently, on 15.06.2005, the applicant was initially
appointed as a Line Clear Porter on compassionate grounds. He was
promoted from time to time and was lastly promoted as Kantawala and
posted at SS/NER/Sagar Pali.
3.1 In January 2014, he was sent for his Periodical Medical
Examination, wherein the applicant’s colour vision was found to be
doubtful/not clear. Accordingly, he was sent to the Professor of the Institute
of Eye, IMS, BHU, Varanasi, for examination of severe diminution of vision
BE (both eyes). Upon being examined at the said Institution, a vision report
was given to the Railway Medical Officer, NER, Varanasi, for further action.
3.2 In view thereof, the case of the applicant was referred to Dr.
R.P. Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, for clarification regarding doubtful colour
vision. After examining his colour vision on 24.02.2014, the Eye Specialist,
Dr. R.P. Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, gave a report on 27.02.2014, wherein no
report of malingering regarding reduced colour vision was given, and the
Page 2 of 12

matter was again reported to the Railway Medical Authority, NER, Varanasi,
for necessary action.
3.3 Thereafter, on 06.03.2014, the matter of the applicant was
again referred to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Byculla,
Mumbai. After examining the applicant, the case was referred to UBMI
Institute Private A-1, Ganesh Bagh, 214 Bhalchandra Road, Dadar East,
Mumbai, where the colour vision testing of the applicant was conducted and
a report was given on 11.03.2014. The said report stipulated that the HRR
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
plates were refused to be read, the applicant did not read the Lantern Test
and D-15 also. To confirm the colour vision deficiency, including
Achromatopsia, an anomaloscope test was conducted, but no answer was
given to any question and the findings did not fit in with Achromatopsia.
Based on the above report, it was suspected that the applicant was
malingering and, to confirm the same, Cone Response and Colour ERG
tests were conducted, the report whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:
Pattern ERG (pERG)
Pattern ERG was done DTL tread electrode in an un-dilated eye using
a Pattern reversal checkerboard (according to the ISCEV Standard).
P 50 response (represents macular Photo receptor) is reduced
bilaterally.
N 95 response (represents ganglion cell function) is reduced bilaterally.
3.4 The above report was given to the applicant on 11.03.2014, but
it was taken back from him to give another changed report on the same date.
The applicant, however, also obtained a copy of the original medical report
dated 11.03.2014. Surprisingly, the applicant was again called by
telephone/mobile to visit Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Central Railway
Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai, by respondent - 5. When the applicant reported
before the concerned Medical Officer, he was asked to return the original
colour vision testing report dated 11.03.2014, which had earlier been given to
him.
Page 3 of 12

3.5 On returning the original colour vision testing report, it was
changed by UBMI through Dr. Memuna Bahadur on the same day, and
another colour vision testing report of UBMI of the same date was issued. In
the modified report, the colour vision was treated as normal, and the
applicant’s case was shown as suspected “most likely malingering”, i.e.,
showing normal colour vision in the colour package report of UBMI, whereas
in the earlier report, the Pattern ERG (pERG) was shown as “reduced
bilaterally”. However, in both reports, the finding was recorded as suspected
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
“most likely malingering”.
3.6 On 13.03.2014, the Medical Director/CMS of Bharat Ratna Dr.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Central Railway, Byculla, Mumbai,
sent the report directly to CMS/MS/Sr. DMO/NER, Varanasi, with remarks
stating that the “Colour package done [was] suggestive of malingering”.
Therefore, the respondents treated the applicant as a case of “malingering”
under Para 512(2), sub-para (ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, in
their medical reports dated 17.01.2014/15.04.2014.
3.7 Accordingly, the case of the applicant was processed on
29.04.2014, and the APO/DRM’s Office, NER, Varanasi, recommended the
same on 30.04.2014, with a note that the applicant may be given a posting
as an Office Clerk or in any other post, provided that the Sr. DOM
recommends the same. The case of the applicant was put up before the
DOM on 07.05.2014, and the DOM, NER, Varanasi, approved the same with
the remarks that, till the applicant was absorbed in any alternative post, he
should be utilized on other posts or against a supernumerary post
temporarily in the DRM’s Office. In this regard, an office order was issued on
16.05.2014. Consequently, the applicant was attached to the post of Office
Clerk in the Operating Department in the DRM’s Office, Varanasi, and an
LPC was also issued on 28.05.2014 by the Station Superintendent/Sagar
Page 4 of 12

Pali, NER, to DRM/NER, Varanasi Office, in order to charge his pay
accordingly.
3.8 On 26.04.2014, the case of the applicant was again put up
before respondent- 4, wherein it was alleged that the applicant had neither
been medically declared unfit nor medically de-categorized, and that the
Medical Authority had declared him a suspected case of “most likely
malingering”, instead of declaring him unfit for the post of Kantawala. As
such, a decision was taken to provide him with an alternative equivalent
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
grade and post in terms of the provisions of Para 512(2), sub-para Note (ii) of
the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000.
3.9 The applicant was not indulging in any malingering, as alleged
by the Railways. Rather, it was due to the reduced P50 response
(representing macular photoreceptor) bilaterally and N95 response
(representing ganglion cell function) reduced bilaterally, as per the Pattern
ERG shown in the first original report given on 11.03.2014. Since the
Railway Medical Authorities themselves did not confirm a clear-cut case of
malingering, whereas the subsequent controversial report dated 11.03.2014
mentioned “suggestive malingering/most likely malingering”, the applicant
was neither declared fit for duty in the A-2 medical category nor medically
de-categorized due to deficiency arising from reduced colour vision, as per
the first colour vision testing report dated 11.03.2014 of UBMI, Mumbai.
3.10 The applicant represented on 19.07.2016, followed by
reminders, before the respondents, stating that neither was he being paid
salary with HRA in the 510 Bill Unit nor had he been finally absorbed in an
appropriate equivalent grade and post, as he was temporarily posted as an
Office Clerk attached to the Operating Department of the DRM’s Office,
Varanasi. Subsequently, the DOM/NER/Varanasi, vide his note dated
11.01.2017, gave his comments in the matter of absorption, observing that it
Page 5 of 12

was not fair to declare the applicant as a case of “malingering” on the basis
of the controversial reports dated 11.03.2014, i.e., one showing Photopic
ERG—reduced bilaterally and another report of the same date showing
Photopic ERG—normal bilaterally. It was suggested that the applicant be
absorbed in terms of the notice dated 16.05.2014.
3.11 Thereafter, the Assistant Personnel Officer/II, NER, DRM’s
Office, Varanasi, referred the matter to the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer (NG),
North Eastern Railway, Varanasi, vide letter dated 23.03.2017, by attaching
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
the modified medical report dated 11.03.2014 and stating that further action
be taken, being a case of “most likely malingering” under Para 512(2), sub-
para (ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual. The claim of the applicant
regarding HRA was replied to by the respondents vide letter dated
17.04.2017, wherein it was stated that, as the applicant had been temporarily
absorbed as a Clerk and attached to the Operating Department, DRM’s
Office, Varanasi, against a supernumerary post of Kantawala of Sagar Pali,
he was not entitled to the benefit of HRA at Varanasi.
3.12 Against the letter dated 17.04.2017, the applicant submitted a
representation on 12.05.2017 before the DRM, NER, Varanasi, and the
General Manager, NER. Thereafter, the Sr. Divisional Medical Officer
(Admn.)/NER/Varanasi issued a letter dated 26.05.2017, wherein it was
observed that the case of the applicant was an established case of
malingering on the basis of the letters dated 17.01.2014/15.04.2014 and not
on the basis of the first original medical report dated 11.03.2014 of UBMI,
Mumbai. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.
4. Per contra, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondents on 24.10.2018, wherein it has been stated that the applicant
was initially appointed as a Line Clear Porter on compassionate grounds on
15.06.2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and was further promoted from
Page 6 of 12

time to time. Ultimately, on 25.05.2011, he was promoted as Sr. Points-man
Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and thereafter posted as
Kantawala under SS/NER/Sagar Pali Railway Station. On 15.01.2014, the
applicant was sent for his Periodical Medical Examination to the Chief
Medical Superintendent, NER, Varanasi, and during the medical
examination, his colour vision was not found to be clear. Therefore, he was
referred to the Professor of the Institute of Eye, IMS, BHU, Varanasi, on
06.02.2014 for examination of diminished vision. However, no opinion
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
regarding malingering in respect of colour perception was sought, and after
examination, the Doctor of BHU, Varanasi, reported normal vision in respect
of the applicant.
4.1 After receiving the report from IMS, BHU, the Sr. DMO/Eye
Specialist, NER Railway, Varanasi, referred the case of the applicant to
AIIMS, New Delhi, for examination, where the applicant refused to
read/recognize any colour plates. However, in the examination report, no
opinion was given regarding malingering.
4.2 After receiving the report from AIIMS, New Delhi, the applicant
was further referred to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital,
Byculla, Mumbai, on 06.03.2014. After examination there, he was referred to
UBMI, Dadar East, Mumbai, where he was examined and a report was given
by the concerned Doctor on 11.03.2014 stating that the applicant refused to
answer any question during colour testing and that the ERG response was
normal. It was further stated that the patient was most likely malingering. As
per the report of the colour vision testing, to confirm any form of colour
deficiency, including achromatopsia, the applicant was shown the
anomaloscope, but he refused to answer any question and did not fit the
criteria for achromatopsia. He stated that he could not see anything at all, not
even black. Based on the above report, to rule out malingering, the applicant
Page 7 of 12

was tested for cone and colour ERG, which was found to be normal, thereby
confirming malingering.
4.3 However, on the basis of the medical examination report
regarding malingering, a recommendation was made to proceed under the
provisions of Para 512(2), sub-para (ii) of the IRMM, and the applicant was
temporarily attached to the office of DRM, Varanasi, under the existing
Rules. There was no contradiction in the medical examination report dated
11.03.2014, as alleged by the applicant. After considering the reports dated
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
17.01.2014/15.04.2014, the respondents passed the impugned order,
declaring the applicant’s case to be one of malingering. Hence, this Original
Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the
applicant on 23.10.2018, reiterating the same facts as has been stated in
Original Application.
6. Mr. Umashankar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondents have
wrongly and arbitrarily treated the applicant as a case of “malingering”
without there being any conclusive medical finding to that effect. During the
initial medical examination conducted at IMS, BHU, Varanasi, as well as at
AIIMS, New Delhi, no opinion regarding malingering was recorded. Rather,
the subsequent medical reports dated 11.03.2014 are contradictory in
nature, as the original report indicated reduced P50 and N95 responses
bilaterally, whereas the subsequently modified report showed the ERG
response as normal.
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
original medical report dated 11.03.2014 was taken back from the applicant
and was subsequently replaced by a modified report of the same date. The
applicant was never declared medically fit for the post of Kantawala in the
Page 8 of 12

relevant medical category, nor was he formally declared medically
decategorized. Therefore, the respondents could not have treated him as a
case of malingering merely on the basis of a disputed and contradictory
medical report.
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that even
the DOM, NER, Varanasi, in his note dated 11.01.2017, observed that it was
not fair to declare the applicant a case of malingering on the basis of the
controversial reports dated 11.03.2014 and suggested his absorption in an
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
alternative post. Learned counsel submits that the respondents, instead of
considering the applicant’s case objectively and providing him an appropriate
equivalent post in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Indian
Railway Medical Manual, have arbitrarily continued his temporary attachment
as an Office Clerk.
6.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
applicant has not been granted the benefit of HRA and has not been finally
absorbed against an appropriate equivalent post, despite the fact that the
respondents themselves had decided to utilize him in an alternative post.
Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned action of the respondents,
treating the applicant as a case of malingering and denying him
consequential service benefits, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and
submitted that during the Periodical Medical Examination of the applicant,
his colour vision was found to be doubtful/not clear, whereafter he was
referred to various specialized medical institutions, including IMS, BHU,
Varanasi, AIIMS, New Delhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital,
Byculla, Mumbai and UBMI, Dadar East, Mumbai, for further examination.
Page 9 of 12

7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that although
the reports of IMS, BHU, Varanasi and AIIMS, New Delhi, did not record any
specific opinion regarding malingering, the subsequent detailed examination
conducted at UBMI, Mumbai, on 11.03.2014 clearly indicated that the
applicant refused to answer the colour vision tests and that the ERG
response was normal. The applicant did not fit the criteria for achromatopsia
and, upon further testing through cone and colour ERG, the response was
found to be normal, which confirmed that the applicant was malingering.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
7.2 It is further submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid medical
opinion, the applicant’s case was duly considered under Para 512(2), sub-
para (ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, and he was temporarily
attached to the DRM’s Office, Varanasi, in accordance with the applicable
rules. The respondents have thus acted strictly in accordance with the
medical opinion and the relevant provisions of the IRMM.
7.3 Learned counsel further submits that there is no contradiction
in the medical reports dated 11.03.2014, as alleged by the applicant. The
subsequent medical report and the findings recorded therein were duly
considered by the competent medical authorities, and on the basis of the
reports dated 17.01.2014/15.04.2014, the applicant was rightly treated as a
case of malingering. Therefore, the impugned action does not warrant any
interference by this Tribunal, and the Original Application is liable to be
dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival contention advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents
on record.
9. As the brief of the facts of the case have already been stated
above, the same is not reiterated for the sake of brevity.
Page 10 of 12

10. It reflects from the records that it is evident that the applicant
was referred to various specialised medical institutions, including IMS, BHU,
Varanasi and AIIMS, New Delhi. Significantly, neither of these institutions
recorded any definite finding of malingering. Thereafter, the applicant was
examined at UBMI, Mumbai, where a report dated 11.03.2014 was issued.
However, there appear to be two reports of the same date containing
materially different findings regarding the ERG response. In the original
report, the P50 and N95 responses were recorded as reduced bilaterally,
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
whereas the subsequent report is stated to have shown the ERG response
as normal. This contradiction in the medical reports creates a doubt which
required proper consideration by the competent authority.
11. It is further significant that the DOM, NER, Varanasi, in his note
dated 11.01.2017, himself observed that it was not fair to declare the
applicant a case of malingering on the basis of the controversial reports
dated 11.03.2014 and suggested his absorption in terms of the earlier order
dated 16.05.2014. Thus, the finding of malingering, having serious civil
consequences, ought to have been based upon clear, cogent and
unambiguous medical evidence.
12. We also find that pursuant to the order dated 16.05.2014, the
applicant was attached to the DRM’s Office, Varanasi, and was being utilized
as an Office Clerk on a temporary basis. However, despite the passage of
almost 12 years , he has continued to work in such temporary capacity and
has not been finally absorbed against an appropriate equivalent post/grade.
Further, he has also been denied HRA on the ground of his temporary
attachment. Such prolonged continuation of a temporary arrangement,
without taking a final decision regarding his absorption and consequential
benefits, cannot be considered satisfactory.
Page 11 of 12

13. It is also well settled that the question of medical fitness or
otherwise of an employee is essentially a matter for the duly constituted
Medical Board or competent medical authority, and the Court/Tribunal
ordinarily does not possess the expertise to substitute its own medical
opinion for that of the Medical Board.
14. In the circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration by
the competent authority in the light of the entire medical record, particularly
the contradictory reports dated 11.03.2014 and the observations of the DOM
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
dated 11.01.2017. The respondents shall also consider the applicant’s claim
for final absorption, HRA and other consequential service benefits in
accordance with the applicable rules. The impugned order is cryptic and non-
speaking order.
15. In view of the above, impugned order dated 26.05.2017 is liable
to be quashed and set aside and is hereby set aside. Since the applicant has
continued to work against a temporary arrangement for a considerable
period, t he respondents are directed to take a fresh decision, by passing a
reasoned and speaking order regarding the applicant’s permanent
absorption against an alternative post and his claim for grant of HRA, after
examining the complete medical record and considering the provisions of
Para 512(2), sub-para (ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, and after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the applicant, in accordance with
applicable rules. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Resultantly, instant original application stands allowed .
17 All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.
18. No order as to cost.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Pm/-
Page 12 of 12