Failure to convene a Medical Board despite repeated requests entitles an employee to retrospective invalid pension and benefits.

Late Paritosh Bhowmik, the applicant’s husband, served as an Accounts Assistant in N.F. Railway. Diagnosed with Tuberculosis in 2016, he underwent extensive treatment in various hospitals but remained unable to attend duty for three years

During this period, the deceased submitted several representations (between 2017 and 2018) requesting the constitution of a Medical Board for medical invalidation under Para 556 of the Railway Medical Manual

Despite recommendations from his department (Respondent No. 6), the railway medical authorities failed to convene a Board for him, while a similarly situated employee (Ramen Chandra Boro) was processed and declared unfit

Paritosh was eventually superannuated on September 30, 2018, without an invalidity assessment, and passed away on October 23, 2018

The respondents denied invalid pension, arguing that the deceased had not submitted a certificate of permanent incapacity from a duly constituted medical authority

1. Whether the deceased husband of the applicant was entitled to be declared medically unfit and granted invalid pension despite the absence of a Medical Board certificate during his lifetime

2. Whether the failure of the respondents to constitute a Medical Board, despite repeated representations, constitutes illegal discrimination and a violation of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules

Para 56(ii)(b) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which outlines the procedure for constituting a Medical Board of three District or Divisional Medical Officers to certify incapacity for service

Rule 55 and Rule 62 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules regarding the grant of invalid pension

Principles of Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity) of the Constitution of India to address the discriminatory treatment between the deceased and other similarly situated employees

The Tribunal observed that the deceased had made multiple representations for medical invalidation over three years, which were ignored by the respondents

The court noted that the respondents' defense—that the applicant lacked a medical certificate—was a result of their own failure to refer the case to a Medical Board as required under the rules

Comparing the case with that of Ramen Chandra Boro, the Tribunal found clear evidence of discrimination, as a Board was convened for Boro under identical circumstances while the deceased was neglected

The court reasoned that since the deceased was under constant medical care and unable to attend work for three years, the fault for the lack of a formal certificate lay entirely with the department's administrative and medical authorities

The period of absence treated as "Extraordinary Leave" without pay was deemed a result of this administrative failure, depriving the deceased of leave encashment and pension benefits

The court directed the respondents to grant invalid pension to the applicant effective from July 12, 2018 (the date the similarly situated employee was declared unfit)

The respondents were ordered to provide all consequential benefits, including leave encashment and revised family pension, within four months. No order as to costs was made