SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Only Doctors Can Judge Disability: Allahabad High Court Criticizes KESCO’s Non-Medical Panel for Denying Pension

12 September 2024 9:57 AM

By: sayum


High Court mandates the inclusion of medical expertise in disability evaluations, overturning KESCO’s rejection of a valid pension claim. In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company’s (KESCO) rejection of a family pension claim by a physically disabled petitioner. The court emphasized the necessity for medical expertise in evaluating disability claims, criticizing the decision by a non-medical committee to deny the pension.

The petitioner, Mohd. Jamil, who is physically disabled and entirely dependent on his parents, sought a family pension after the death of his mother. His father, an ex-employee of KESCO, retired in 1975 and passed away in 2003. The petitioner’s mother, who subsequently received the pension, died in 2013. Jamil applied for the pension shortly thereafter, supported by a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of Kanpur Nagar confirming a 60% physical disability.

The court found that the petitioner had furnished a valid disability certificate from a competent medical authority, which should have been conclusive evidence of his eligibility for the pension. The court noted, “The committee constituted to evaluate the petitioner’s claim lacked any members with medical expertise, thereby rendering their assessment fundamentally flawed.”

The decision to reject the pension was based on the petitioner’s past operation of a Public Call Office (PCO), which the committee interpreted as evidence of his ability to earn a livelihood. The court highlighted that this interpretation was invalid as it did not consider the medical aspects of the petitioner’s disability. “A person’s past ability to engage in some form of livelihood does not negate the presence of a qualifying disability,” the court stated.

Justice Ajit Kumar emphasized that disability assessments for pension purposes must be conducted by qualified medical professionals. The court observed, “A medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer can only be contested by a similarly or more qualified medical board, not by administrative personnel without medical training.” The court also found that the non-medical committee’s conclusion was not supported by any counter-evidence or a second medical opinion.

Justice Kumar remarked, “The certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer certifying the petitioner’s 60% disability due to polio must be respected unless contested by a medical board with appropriate expertise.” The judgment criticized the respondent’s failure to adhere to these principles, stating, “The committee’s rejection of the pension claim was clearly unsustainable and lacked a basis in the relevant medical and legal standards.”

The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that disability pensions are adjudicated based on proper medical assessments. The ruling mandates KESCO to grant the family pension to the petitioner within a month, setting a precedent for the proper handling of similar cases. This judgment reinforces the legal framework that protects the rights of disabled individuals to receive due benefits without unwarranted administrative obstruction.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Mohd. Jamil vs. Managing Director Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO) and Others

Latest Legal News