DHARAMBIR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short controversy emerges in this writ petition as to whether in view of the payment made by the respondent on account of compensation to the petitioner who was rendered medically unfit and was retired prematurely on medical ground, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called "the Act'). Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.72,252/- as compensation on medical ground and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as compensation on the ground of disablement. It was contended before me that respondents have formulated the scheme in view of directive given by Supreme Court in Anand Bihari and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1003. The scheme was formulated by the respondent and the amount of compensation was paid. Mr.Vibhu Shankar has further contended that the respondent was not obliged to reinstate the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no escape for the respondent but to employ the petitioner in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. Civil Appeal No.1864/2000 arising out of SLP (C) 7997/99 where Supreme Court held as follows :

(3.) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it is no more open for the respondent to contend that as the workman has been paid compensation on medical ground and compensation on the ground of disablement, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in view of the specific provision of Section 47 of the Act. Even if the above amount was paid under the scheme, the petitioner would have been entitled for reinstatement in view of the specific orders and directions passed by the Supreme Court in a similar case. There is no denial of the fact that the injury sustained by the petitioner was during the course of employment. That being so, the ratio of Kunwar Pal Singh's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case.