Mandatory Re-Medical Examination by Specialized Board in Case of Conflicting Medical Opinions on Cardiac Fitness

The applicant, a DTC driver appointed in 2009, reached the age of 55 in August 2023

Per DTC regulations, extension of service for drivers beyond 55 years is subject to an annual medical fitness test

On 07.08.2023, the Medical Board declared him "temporarily unfit" due to hypertension and suspected heart issues

On 14.08.2023, after reviewing reports from a private laboratory indicating Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) and mild LV dysfunction, the Board declared him definitively "unfit," leading to his retirement

The applicant sought re-examination, presenting reports from Hindu Rao Hospital and PGIMS Rohtak, which he claimed declared him "fit"

the respondents argued these reports actually corroborated his cardiovascular ailments

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a re-medical examination by a specialized board in light of allegedly conflicting medical opinions from government hospitals.

2. Whether the DTC's decision to retire the applicant at age 55 due to medical unfitness was arbitrary or contrary to established service rules.

The court applied Regulation 10 of the DRTA (Condition Appointment of Service) Regulations, 1952, and DTC Office Order No. 99 of 1963, which establish the age of superannuation for drivers as 55 years, extendable only upon year-to-year medical fitness

It relied on the principle that in matters of public safety involving heavy vehicle driving, the employer may prescribe strict medical standards

The court further referenced DTC v. Dharampal (LPA 1214/2007) and Hawa Singh v. DTC (W.P.(C) 7880/2011), which affirm that heart ailments justify medical unfitness for drivers and that such employees do not automatically qualify for protection under the Disabilities Act if the condition is not a listed disability

The Tribunal observed that while the applicant claimed the government hospital reports found him "fit," a closer scrutiny revealed they diagnosed "Ischemic Heart Disease" and "mild LV dysfunction," which are disqualifying criteria under DTC Medical Standards

the applicant contended that the original Medical Board lacked a cardiologist to make a final determination on heart disease

fairness dictates that when an employee challenges a finding with secondary government reports, an independent specialized review is appropriate to resolve the conflict

The court reasoned that a specialized board including a cardiologist would ensure that the assessment of "cardiovascular abnormality" is definitive and beyond reproach

The Hospital must constitute a board comprising a Cardiologist to specifically evaluate the applicant's cardiac fitness against DTC standards. If found fit, the respondents must consider him for consequential benefits; if found unfit, the retirement stands.