Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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