Railway Employee Disabled in Service Entitled to Lump Sum Compensation Regardless of Re-employment.

The applicant, Babloo Yadav, a 43-year-old male Trackman employed by N.F. Railway at Thakurganj Railway Station, sustained a traumatic amputation at his left mid-arm level on January 1, 2017 while unloading ballast from a train.

He was immediately referred to CMS NJP and then to HWH Orthopaedic Hospital of Eastern Railway Kolkata, where he was provided an artificial limb on August 7, 2017.

A Medical Examination on January 17, 2018, by the Divisional Medical Committee, NJP, found him unfit for A/3, B/1, or B/2 categories but fit for C/1 category and below, recommending alternative employment on medical grounds, which the competent authority accepted on January 24, 2018.

He was later declared medically unfit for his earlier employment and certified with an 80% loss of earning capacity by Howrah Orthopaedic Hospital.

The applicant submitted a representation dated March 16, 2021, to the DRM, N.F. Railway, Katihar, seeking compensatory relief for the loss of earning capacity, but received no response.

The Opposite Parties argued that the accident occurred due to the applicant's own fault and carelessness in not being attentive to his personal safety at the workplace, and since he continues to receive his monthly salary and benefits in alternative employment, he is not entitled to disability pension or compensation.

The applicant rejoined the Medical Department as a Malariaman on a decategorized post.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity despite being employed in an alternative, decategorized post, given the accident occurred during the course of employment.

2. Whether the applicant's alleged carelessness negates his right to compensation for the injury sustained.

3. Whether the Railway authorities failed in their duty to provide appropriate compensation as per rules after the accident.

The court applied Rule 10(4) of the Railway Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1993, which mandates lump sum compensation in lieu of disability pension for a railway servant retained in service despite disablement, based on the capitalized value of the disability pension admissible.

It further considered RBE 39/2000 (Railway Board's letter No. F(E)/III/2000/PN1/16 dated 08.03.2000) and the Ministry of Pension Public Grievance and Pension Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Notification No. 45/22/97-P & PWC dated 09.02.2000, which categorize disabilities, with Category 'C' pertaining to death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties, and provide for a disability pension.

The O.M. also outlines the method for reckoning the percentage of disability for computation of the disability element.

The court referenced the principle that an injury suffered by a worker in the course of employment entitles them to compensation.

The court noted that the Opposite Parties did not deny the fact that the applicant sustained severe injury while performing his duty of unloading ballast on January 1, 2017.

Despite the Opposite Parties' contention that the applicant was careless and the accident was due to his own fault, the court found no evidence from any eyewitness to substantiate this claim.

The court reasoned that since the applicant was on Railway duty and had boarded the train as advised, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it could not be inferred that he was solely responsible or contributorily negligent.

Therefore, the applicant was deemed entitled to compensation for the accident, trauma, treatment, and loss of earning capacity.

The court highlighted that even though the applicant was re-employed in a decategorized post and received a monthly salary, Rule 10(3) of the Railway Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1993, specifically provides for lump sum compensation for disabled employees retained in service.

The court acknowledged that the applicant's case clearly falls under Category 'C' as per RBE 39/2000 and the O.M. of DoP & PW dated 03.02.2000, which provides for disability pension.

The court expressed regret that despite the accident occurring in 2017, the authorities had not provided appropriate compensation and found it unfortunate.

The Tribunal directed the Opposite Parties to medically examine the applicant within 30 days of receiving the order to determine the nature and extent of his disability and loss of earning capacity.

Subsequently, based on the competent Medical Board's certificate, the Opposite Parties are to calculate the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1993, RBE 39/2000, and the applicable O.M. of DoP & PW, and pay the calculated amount to the applicant strictly within 90 days.

The M.A. on record stands disposed of, and parties are to bear their own costs.