Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court observed that serious and identifiable medical conditions such as amputation, stroke-related paralysis, spinal injuries, or irreversible vision loss cannot be casually classified as “general physical debility” to deny dependent employment benefits to workers under the National Coal Wage Agreement VI.
The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin, delivered a common judgment in a large batch of writ appeals filed by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). The appeals challenged the order of a single judge directing reconsideration of the medical categorisation of employees seeking dependent employment under Clause 9.4.0 of the wage agreement.
The dispute arose after a medical board at Gandhi Medical College and Hospital examined 127 employees and categorised only six as suffering from permanent disability, while placing the remaining workers under “general physical debility,” thereby restricting their eligibility for dependent employment.
While examining the appeals, the court observed that the wage agreement clearly distinguishes between permanent disability caused by injury or disease and generalised physical weakness. It noted that several cases involved grave disabilities such as amputation, stroke with hemiparesis, cervical spinal injury with quadriparesis, and irreversible optic nerve damage.
According to the court, such conditions cannot ordinarily be treated as mere general debility. Mechanical categorisation under Clause 9.4.0(ii) would defeat the purpose of the welfare scheme meant to provide social security to mine workers.
The bench emphasised that although courts generally defer to expert medical opinions, such opinions are not immune from judicial scrutiny when the classification appears arbitrary or lacks reasoning. It also clarified that the responsibility for categorising employees under Clause 9.4.0(i) or (ii) ultimately lies with the employer, while the medical board only provides medical opinion regarding the nature and extent of disability.
The court therefore held that the categorisation process must involve a structured and reasoned assessment based on medical findings rather than mechanically applying the “general debility” label. It directed SCCL to undertake the categorisation exercise afresh through a duly constituted committee, ensuring fair and individualised evaluation of each case.
Accordingly, the batch of writ appeals filed by SCCL was disposed of with directions to conduct the fresh categorisation in accordance with Clause 9.4.0, ensuring that cases involving clear permanent disability are not wrongly treated as instances of general physical debility.
HC flags residence verification
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed authorities to conduct fresh verification of residence in a dispute concerning appointment to the post of Anganwadi helper in Wanaparthy district.
The direction came in a writ petition filed by S. Janaki, who challenged the decision of authorities not to consider her candidature for the Anganwadi helper post in Manajipet village of Quila Ghanpur mandal, and instead appoint G. Janaki.
The petitioner stated that she secured 354 marks in the selection process and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. However, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she was not residing in the village during field verification by officials.
She contended that she had delivered her third child on March 23, 2018, and was temporarily away from the village when the verification was conducted. She also alleged that some individuals whose statements were used to conclude that she was not residing in the village were themselves not residents of Manajipet.
The court noted that the respondents’ counter-affidavit did not specifically deny this allegation. Observing that the issue concerned verification of residence, the court directed authorities to conduct fresh verification.
It further ordered that if the petitioner is found to have been residing in Manajipet at the relevant time, authorities must take steps to appoint the more meritorious candidate by setting aside the appointment of the fifth respondent. The entire process must be completed within three months.
HC quashes case on chit scheme
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused in an alleged money circulation scheme case, holding that the prosecution failed to produce any material establishing his role as a promoter.
The case involved alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
The petitioner argued that the only allegation against him was that he was a “promoter” who induced investors to join the scheme. However:
-
No incriminating material was seized from him
-
No witness statement attributed any specific role to him
-
Even the company through which the scheme allegedly operated was not made an accused
It was also argued that provisions related to chit fund operations could not be invoked because the company itself was not registered under the relevant chit fund laws.
The court observed that the charge sheet did not disclose any material indicating that the petitioner was involved in the management or promotion of the company. Even after completion of the investigation, the prosecution failed to produce any foundational evidence connecting him with the alleged scheme.
In the absence of incriminating material, the court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and therefore quashed the case against the petitioner.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
