RAM MEHAR SINGH Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the award dated 28 th January, 2006 wherein though the pre-mature retirement of the Petitioner was held to be unjustified, he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that since the Petitioner lost his eye sight while serving with the Respondent, he could not have been prematurely retired and the Respondent was duty bound to provide him an alternative employment in the same pay scale. The job of Store Attendant as offered by the Respondent was in a lower scale and that is why the Petitioner wanted to join the same under protest. However, the Respondent in view of the fact that the Petitioner was joining the same under protest imposed a penalty of premature retirement on him. Reliance is placed on Delhi Development Authority vs. Omvati Kalshan,2007 145 DLT 17 to contend that the Petitioner satisfies the prescription of a disabled person and de-hors Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short "the Act?) the Constitution mandates that no discrimination can be met with the Petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that since the Petitioner refused to join the alternative job of Store Attendant the Respondent was left with no option but to prematurely retire the Petitioner because the Petitioner could not perform the duties of the driver due to his low vision. No retrospective operation can be given to Section 47 of the Act as held by the Division Bench in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Harpal Singh, 2009 156 DLT 481. In view of the Office Order dated 20 th January, 1992 and the Resolution No. 23 dated 15 th October, 1973 since the Petitioner refused to accept the post of Store Attendant offered to him he was required to be prematurely retired under Clause-10 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and thus there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is also contended that the claim of the Petitioner is belated as though he was prematurely retired on 27 th May, 1991 he raised the dispute in 2000 and thus no relief for the said period can be granted to him. The Petitioner has already superannuated on 31 st January, 2006 and thus he cannot be directed to be reinstated.