DILBAGH SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to the respondent Nos 1 and 2 (hereafter DTC ) setting aside an order of premature retirement, passed against the petitioner, due to his contracting an injury while on duty, as a driver with the DTC. A decision of the third respondent (hereafter Chief Commissioner ) declining relief under provisions of the Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter called the Act ), has been questioned.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a driver, by the DTC in 1983. He continued in its services, and worked in that capacity, when, on 1-10-1991, as he was driving a bus on route from Delhi to Balaji, the vehicle was intercepted, surrounded by an irate mob in Oranda village, and not allowed to proceed further. The bus contained 60 passengers, who were forced to get down. The mob pelted stones, caused damage to it, and sought to put fire to the bus. The petitioner interceded, and incurred the wrath of the mob, who rained lathi blows on him. He was hit on the back of his head, and lost consciousness. The police reached the spot, and the petitioner was removed to a hospital; when he regained consciousness, he was bandaged, given some medical attention, and discharged from hospital. The petitioner drove back the bus to the depot, inspite of his injury, upon receiving directions. The petitioner took leave for a few days. Sometime in 1996, a medical examination was conducted, and the petitioner received an order dated 21st May, 1996, prematurely retiring him from services, of the DTC, on the ground that he was medically unfit. The petitioner approached this court, by filing CW No. 2285/1996, which was disposed off on 2nd November, 1999, recording that he was entitled to compensation as per formula evolved by the Supreme Court, and as far as the relief of employment was concerned, liberty was granted to him to seek it in accordance with law. He subsequently filed another writ petition, being WP 234/2001, for quashing of the order of premature retirement, and direction to DTC to offer employment; that petition was disposed off on 25-9-2001 with liberty to him to approach the Chief Commissioner.

(3.) The petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner; however his requests were not considered. He approached this court again, and on 17th May, 2002, the court directed the Chief Commissioner to decide the petitioner s complaint within three weeks. The chief Commissioner required the petitioner to furnish a certificate disclosing that he was suffering from a disability more than 40%. The petitioner got himself examined, by the Safdarjung Hospital; on 27th November, 2002, the hospital issued a certificate stating that his fundus is (n-normal) & (L) cornea has Nibulo-Macular Opecities visual disability is less than 20% (twenty per cent) . This certificate was furnished to the Chief Commissioner.