KUNAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Special Service Bureau (for short the SSB). When he was on duty, he suffered an injury in his left leg. The medical aid given to him did not help. Ultimately, his left leg was amputated on account of gangrene which had developed from the injury. He was invalidated from service by the respondents on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, Kullu under which he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service as per order dated 20-11-1998 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Shamshi (Kullu). He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he could discharge keeping in view the extent of his disability and having due regard to 17 years of his unblemished service. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that he had been permanently invalidated on the basis of the medical opinion and as such there was no scope for him to continue any further in service of any kind in the SSB. Hence, this appeal is filed assailing the impugned order. It appears, before the High Court, no argument was advanced specifically in support of the writ petition on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the Act). However, a specific ground is raised in this appeal based on Section 47 of the Act. Since it is a pure question of law, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the contentions including the one based on Section 47 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, pointing to few relevant definitions contained in Section 2 and Section 47 of the Act, urged that on the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the object and purpose of the Act, relief ought to have been granted as sought in the writ petition.

(3.) In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions in support and justification of the impugned order. He also drew our attention to Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 under which the appellant is granted invalidity pension which he is drawing. According to him, in view of the relevant definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, the appellant is not a person with disability as he is permanently incapacitated. He also drew our attention in support of his argument to Section 2(o) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 to make a distinction.