Competent authorities must consider documented health constraints and constitute the employee’s medical board at Srinagar.

The applicant challenged order No. 20902/Civ Est dated 24 July 2026, whereby the respondents constituted a Medical Board and notified 25 August 2026 for the applicant’s medical examination at Associated Hospital, GMC, Udhampur, pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier directions dated 9 October 2025.

The applicant asserted that travelling approximately 300 kilometres to Udhampur was medically unsafe in view of the ailments reflected in the prescriptions annexed to the O.A.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the impugned order and a direction for medical examination at SMHS Hospital or SKIMS, Srinagar.

The background included an earlier order dated 20 March 2024 directing that the O.A. be treated as a representation, permitting the respondents to constitute a Medical Board to assess the applicant’s health, and requiring the process to be completed within twenty days.

The respondents contended that the applicant had deliberately avoided appearing before the Medical Board.

At the applicant’s request, the Tribunal took up the O.A. for final disposal.

Whether the applicant’s challenge to the order dated 24 July 2026 warranted interference on the ground that the applicant’s medical condition prevented travel to Udhampur for examination by the Medical Board?

Whether the respondents should be directed to constitute a Medical Board at Srinagar, in accordance with the applicable standing Government instructions?

Whether the applicant’s O.A. could be treated as a representation for consideration by the competent authority without the Tribunal expressing an opinion on the merits of the medical claim?

The Tribunal applied the principle that assessment of an individual’s medical condition falls primarily within the domain of qualified medical experts, and that courts and tribunals are not ordinarily medical experts capable of independently determining such questions.

It further recognised that the competent authority is not powerless to consider genuine medical difficulties affecting an employee, particularly because the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is an important constitutional consideration.

The Tribunal also relied on the earlier judicial directions permitting constitution of a Medical Board and requiring the respondents to act in accordance with law, including the standing Government instructions governing the constitution of Medical Boards.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order beyond these principles.

The Tribunal did not itself determine whether the applicant was medically incapable of travelling to Udhampur, noting that such assessment was properly within the province of medical experts.

Although the respondents alleged deliberate avoidance of the Medical Board, the applicant had produced medical prescriptions and raised a specific concern regarding the effect of long-distance travel on the applicant’s health.

Balancing the need for an expert medical assessment with the applicant’s asserted health constraints and the constitutional concern under Article 21, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to reconsider the request and, in accordance with the applicable Government instructions, constitute the Medical Board at Srinagar.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the applicant’s medical claim.

The respondents were directed to consider the representation and constitute a Medical Board at Srinagar in accordance with law and the standing Government instructions governing Medical Boards.

The consideration was to be completed within four weeks, with any delay attributable to the respondents.

The Tribunal did not quash the impugned order on merits and made it clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicant’s case.

All connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.