DHARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this Second appeal filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 4.7.66 by the. Officer-in-charge Rural Health Training Centre, Govt. of India, Najafgarh, Delhi terminating his services as a driver was illegal and void. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi vide Judgment dated 28.8.74 and the first appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 10.3.1975.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the suit are that the appellant was recruited in July, 1952 as a Mobile Attendant under the Director of Health Services, Delhi where be worked as a Cleaner upto 1956. Before appointment he was found medically fit by the competent authority. He was promoted as a Driver with effect from 22.12.56 by Director Health Services and was transfered to Najafgarh with effect from 1.8.57. His administrative control was taken over by Directorate General of Health Services. He was then asked to appear for medical examination. According to the appellant the direction for a medical examination was illegal and unwarranted because he claimed to have been declared fit earlier. In spite of that he submitted for medical examination when he was again declared fit. On 20,5.63 he was served with a notice that in view of the adverse medical report, he could not be retained as a Driver. He was offered the post of a Cleaner which was accepted by the appellant under protest. According to the appellant, he was demoted because of his trade union activities'. He also preferred an appeal against reversion but the decision in appeal was not communicated to him. He was, however, promoted as a driver with effect from 19.9.64 and continued as such till 4.7.1966 when his services as driver were. again terminated and he was offered the post of a Cleaner. He accepted the same under protest and simultaneously filed an appeal. In the aforesaid cireums- tances the appellant challegned the order dated 4.7.1966 being illegal, void and without jurisdiction and in contravention of the principles of equity and natural justice.

(3.) The respondent contested the suit. Following issues were framed: