Railway administration may order re-medical examination where an employee’s prior medical assessment is doubtful.

The applicant, a Railway Technician appointed in 2011, was declared medically unfit for train-running and passing duties by the Divisional Medical Committee on 19 January 2016.

The Committee recommended alternative sedentary employment, following which he was medically decategorised and appointed as Technician-III in an alternative post on 18 May 2016.

After approximately nineteen months, the Railway Administration directed him to undergo re-medical examination before a Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, referring to concerns raised by the Vigilance Department regarding certain earlier medical decategorisation cases, including his case.

The applicant challenged the orders dated 4 October 2017 and 27 January 2018, contending that, after medical decategorisation and absorption in an alternative post, he could not be subjected to re-medical examination.

Whether the Railway Administration could direct the applicant, who had already been medically decategorised and absorbed in an alternative post, to undergo re-medical examination when the correctness of the earlier medical assessment was considered doubtful?

Whether the impugned orders dated 4 October 2017 and 27 January 2018 directing the applicant to appear before an AIIMS Medical Board were legally infirm and liable to be quashed?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that an employer may require an employee to undergo medical examination at any time to ascertain the employee’s physical fitness, particularly where the correctness of an earlier medical examination or fitness certificate is doubtful.

The Tribunal further held that assessment of medical fitness and suitability under the applicable medical standards is primarily a matter for competent medical experts and Medical Boards, and that adjudicatory forums should ordinarily refrain from substituting their own view for medical expertise.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had validly been medically decategorised and placed in an alternative post in 2016, but held that this did not immunise the earlier medical assessment from subsequent verification.

The Vigilance Department’s scrutiny had raised doubts regarding the medical assessment in certain decategorisation cases, including the applicant’s case, thereby providing a basis for directing a fresh examination.

The Tribunal reasoned that re-medical examination was intended only to verify the applicant’s correct medical status and fitness under the prescribed standards, rather than to nullify his alternative appointment without assessment.

Since the determination of medical fitness was within the competence of the Medical Board and no legal infirmity was established in the direction to undergo examination, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

The challenge to the orders dated 4 October 2017 and 27 January 2018 was rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; any interim order was discharged, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.