SUNIL KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The matter has been heard at length and, therefore, is being finally disposed of.

(2.) This is yet another case where Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has considered it expedient to prematurely retire a workman, in the face of their own Resolution as well as the mandates of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Disabilities Act') rather than take work from him. The effect is, as in so many cases which have come to Court, that the DTC shall have to pay wages to persons from whom they have taken over, largely due to the obduracy of the Corporation.

(3.) Circular No. PLD-III (Remustering/absorption) 96/2221 dated 11th October, 1996 reads as follows: It has been decided by the DTC Board vide its Resolution No. 116/96 (Item No. 94/96) that the existing scheme of payment of compensation as circulated vide office order issued vide office order issued vide No. PED- III(Remustering/Absorption)/95/3318 dated 13th November, 1995 to those employees who are rendered medically unfit by the DTC Medical Board for the posts they were appointed, on their pre-mature retirement on medical grounds, may continued to be followed, subject to the following modifications: i) In case of injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and as a result of which an employee is incapacitated for the work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in total disablement, shall be rehabilitated either in these equivalent post or lower post subject to the conditions that he fulfills the conditions of educational qualification and is medically fit for the new post. ii) The definition of total disablement shall be the same as specified in section 2(i)(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.