1. This writ petition is filed to seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in passing the sanction order dated 24.03.2005 vide proc.No.-RF-13/2006(10)-ADM-II, basing on the re-assessment made by respondent No.4, by re-justifying/reducing the percentage of disability of the petitioner from 88% to 51%, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner by taking the disability @ 88%.

2. Heard Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the respondent’s organisation in the year 1991 and continued as such; while so, in the year 2001, the petitioner sustained injury to the back, fell ill and he was operated on L1, L2, L3 and Dissectomy on 01.05.2001; later when he appeared before Departmental Rehabilitation Board as directed by respondent authorities, the Board has declared the petitioner unfit for CRPF duties on 10.10.2004 and referred to appear before the Board of Medical Officers of Base Hospital-2, CRPF, Hyderabad; that the Medical Board examined the petitioner and found that he was suffering from Recurrent Disc Herniation and further assessed the disability @ 88%; that the same was informed to the petitioner by respondent No.1 on 19.09.2005 and the petitioner’s acceptance was sought for retirement on Medical Invalidation; that accordingly, the petitioner’s representation dated 23.09.2005 to respondent No.1 to accept his retirement on medical invalidation w.e.f. from 15.10.2005; and that on 29.09.2005, respondent No.1 passed an order vide proc No.P.III-4-5-EC-II, by invalidating the petitioner from services w.e.f. from 18.10.2005.

               3.1. It is further averred that inspite of being operated on L1, L2 and L-3, as he did not recover fully, he approached NIMS hospital on 04.07.2005, who after conducting all the tests, estimated the total value for treatment as Rs.1,50,000/-.

               3.2. It is further averred that as the disability of the petitioner was assessed to be 88%, he is eligible for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as per Risk Fund, vide Lr.RPF.No.17/2004-05, dated NIL.03.2005, however, the respondents have paid Rs.2,00,000/- only. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents by way of registered post requesting to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, to which, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 24.03.2005, informed the petitioner that the Presiding Officer has re-justified/reduced the percentage of disability @ 51% instead of 88% and basing on that, the payment has been made. Aggrieved by the said letter of respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the guidelines issued regarding Risk Duty Scheme as on March, 2005, if an employee who is in the cadre of the petitioner is retired from the services on the ground of Medical Invalidation and if his disability is estimated between 61% to 88%, the respondents have to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as Risk Fund Final Payment. He further submitted that before re-justifying/reducing the percentage of disability of the petitioner, neither notice was issued to him nor any examination was conducted and as such, the impugned order is high-handed, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government by referring to counter submitted that after the acceptance of retirement of petitioner due to Medical Invalidation, the petitioner’s Risk Fund Final Payment documents were sent to Dy. Inspector General (Adm), Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi vide respondent No.1 letter dated 26.11.2005, for his concurrence on the opinion of the Medical Board of Officers and the IGP/Director (Medical) observed that the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board of Officers was not in consonance with the Doctor’s Manual and therefore, returned the case to the Chief Medical Officer to re-assess the same and after re-assessment, the percentage of disability of the petitioner is reduced to 51% in accordance with Doctor’s Manual to evaluate permanent physical impairment; and accordingly, as per the Standing Orders of the Department, the petitioner has been paid Rs.2,05,000/- including the Central Welfare Fund.

               5.1. He further submitted that the presence of the petitioner was not required for calculation of percentage of disability and that after initial medical invalidation board proceedings, the individual would be spared back to unit and hence, he was not called again for re-assessing the percentage of disability.

6. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in reducing the percentage of disability of the petitioner from 88% to 51% without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

7. It is pertinent to note that the Medical Board initially assessed the petitioner's disability at 88% and later, on the directions of the IGP/Director (Medical), the percentage of disability of the petitioner was reassessed in the light of Doctor’s Manual and was reduced to 51%.

8. The case of the petitioner is that neither notice was issued to him nor fresh medical examination was conducted before such reassessment.

9. It is the case of the respondents that since the assessment of disability of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Doctor’s Manual, the same was reassessed. No doubt, the respondents are bound to follow the Rules and Regulations of the Department, however, when taking a far-reaching decision to reduce the disability of the petitioner from 88% to 51%, the principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner must be given notice and afforded an opportunity of putting forth his case.

10. Furthermore, it appears that the respondents have not even communicated the order reducing the percentage of disability to the petitioner, who is in fact the affected party, which is not fair on the part of the respondent.

11. It is significant to note that the petitioner was kept completely in dark with regard to the reassessment of his disability and he was aware of the same only after he submitted a representation claiming the balance amount which he is entitled to receive as per Risk Duty Scheme. Such action of respondents is wholly inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is unsustainable.

12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 24.03.2005 passed by respondent No.3 vide Proc.No.RF-13/2006(10)-ADM-II, is set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's disability at 88%, as originally assessed by the Medical Board, for the purpose of Risk Fund Final Payment and consequently pay the balance amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.