DHARAM PAL Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition feeling aggrieved with the order of the respondent dated 30.4.2004, retiring him prematurely after his attaining the age of 55 years after he was found medically unfit by the Medical Board in accordance with the office order no.99 dated 4/7.10.1963 read with circular dated 30.6.1998.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide the present writ petition in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed as a driver with respondent/DTC and on 22.7.2003 while driving the bus no. DL 1 PB 5059 on route No. GL 32 (school bus) was assaulted by the travelling passengers of the bullock carts as the bus which the petitioner was driving just crossed through the two carts without even touching them but still the passengers of the bullock cart got enraged and assaulted the petitioner and inflicted serious injuries with the sticks. Due to such injuries sustained by the petitioner, his right hand got partially paralyzed. The petitioner remained under the treatment at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and although he was not fit to discharge his duties as a driver but he was declared medically fit to perform light duties. Accordingly, the petitioner was assigned other ancillary duties of checking the gas/fuel of the buses and air in the tyres and outshedding/inshedding the buses at the Depot/Workshop. From the date of resumption of duties on this new assignment there has been no complaint of any nature whatsoever against him.

(3.) The petitioner was nearing to reach the age of 55 years in April, 2004 and as per the office order no. 99 dated 4/7.10.1963 read with circular dated 30.6.1998, the driver of the DTU could get the benefit of increased retirement age which, at the relevant time was up to 60 years, only after, such a driver is found medically fit after a thorough medical examination by the medical officer of the DTU. The petitioner was sent for medical check-up by the medical officer of the DTC on 29.3.2004 and he was directed to report on 8.4.2004 and again on 22.4.2004 when ultimately he was found and was declared unfit to perform the duties of a driver. After finding the petitioner unfit to perform the duties of a driver, the respondent invoked the term of the circular no. PLD-V/Ret./98/2145 dated 30.6.98 and prematurely retired the petitioner from 30.4.2004 in accordance with clause 10 of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of the said circular whereby the extension of the petitioner beyond the age of 55 years was declined, after he was found unfit to perform the duties of driver.