Alternative employment for medically de-categorized employees must conform to both medical category and sedentary-duty recommendations.

The applicants were RPF Constables appointed in 1998 and 2002. Following medical examination, Applicant No. 1 was declared unfit for RPF duties but fit for sedentary duties in medical category B-1 and below under Para 12.9 of the IRMM-2000, while Applicant No. 2 received a similar recommendation under Para 12.10 of the IRMM-2000.

As no suitable alternative post was available in the RPF, their cases were referred for alternative employment.

Pursuant to a Screening Committee recommendation, they were posted as Technician-II in the Diesel Shed by order dated 19 May 2016. They joined under protest and represented that the Technician post was not sedentary and was inconsistent with the Medical Board’s recommendations.

Their earlier application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter. The respondents thereafter rejected their claim by order dated 3 March 2022, which was challenged in the present proceedings.

The respondents contended that the applicants’ medical category permitted clerical as well as Technician posts, and that they were not assigned running-line, train-running, or train-passing duties.

Whether the alternative post of Technician-II offered to the applicants conformed not merely to their prescribed medical category but also to the Medical Board’s specific recommendation that they be assigned sedentary duties.

Whether the respondents’ order dated 3 March 2022, rejecting the applicants’ claim without objectively examining the nature of duties attached to the Technician-II post, was legally sustainable.

Whether the applicants were entitled to placement in a particular clerical or other alternative post as a matter of right.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle governing medically de-categorized railway employees that alternative employment must be determined with reference not only to the employee’s medical category but also to the nature of duties he is medically capable of performing.

The Medical Board’s recommendations under Paras 12.9 and 12.10 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000, requiring sedentary duties in medical category B-1 and below, were treated as material and binding considerations.

The Tribunal also considered Rules 1307, 1309 and 1310 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which govern the provision of suitable alternative employment to medically de-categorized employees.

These provisions do not confer an absolute right to a particular post, but require the competent authority to objectively assess medical fitness, suitability, the nature of duties, and availability of posts.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had focused primarily on the fact that the Technician-II post carried the requisite medical category and that the applicants were not assigned running duties.

That reasoning was insufficient because the Medical Boards had specifically recommended sedentary work; the absence of running-line or train-passing duties did not establish that the Diesel Shed Technician-II duties were sedentary or otherwise medically suitable.

The respondents failed to produce or demonstrate that the actual duties attached to the post complied with the Medical Board’s recommendation.

Further, the applicants had promptly objected to the posting, showing that their grievance was not an afterthought.

The impugned order did not reflect an objective examination of the nature of the duties and proceeded mainly on the applicable medical category.

However, the applicants could not claim any particular post as of right; the respondents remained responsible for determining a suitable alternative post in accordance with the governing rules and medical recommendations.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicants’ placement against suitable alternative posts involving sedentary duties, keeping in view the Medical Board reports and their medical fitness, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The applicants were expressly held not to be entitled to claim any particular post as a matter of right.

All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.