BRAHAM SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Delhi Transport corporation [for short 'dtc'] w. e. f 29. 03. 1982. While in service, he suffered paralytic attack in December'1993 and was retired prematurely w. e. f. 05. 11. 1996 on the ground of medical unfitness. The Medical Board in RML Hospital declared the petitioner fit for the job of Peon in medical examination held on 17. 12. 1996. Consequent thereto the petitioner was offered the post of Peon in the DTC in the pay scale of Peon on 27. 12. 1996. The petitioner started working as Peon in DTC pursuant to the appointment letter dated 27. 12. 1996 issued to him. When the petitioner was appointed as Peon in DTC pursuant to the appointment letter dated 27. 12. 1996, the appointment letter stipulated that his appointment as Peon would be treated as a fresh appointment and the past service rendered by him on the post of Conductor would not be reckoned for counting the pensionary benefits. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of his pre-mature retirement order dated 05. 11. 1996 and also the order dated 27. 12. 1996 by which he was appointed on a subordinate post of Peon as a fresh appointment. The petitioner has prayed for directions against the respondents to grant him pay in the pay scale of Conductor w. e. f. the date of his pre-mature retirement and also to grant him the continuity of service w. e. f. the date he was appointed as conductor. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to the respondents to pay him arrears of wages and allowances and all other consequential benefits flowing from quashing of impugned orders dated 05. 11. 1996 and 27. 12. 1996 referred above.

(2.) MR. RAVIKANT Jain, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon three judgments of his court, two of learned Single Judge and one of the Division Bench and these judgments are [i] Vijender Singh V/s. Delhi transport Corporation 105[2003] DLT 261; [ii] Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. Rajbir Singh 100[2002] DLT 111[db] and [iii] O P Sharma V/s. Delhi Transport corporation and Anr. 2006 III AD [delhi] 428. In all these three judgments, this Court has held that when a person suffers disability during his employment then he cannot be deprived of the benefit of pay scale in which he was working prior to suffering the disability. It has also been held in these cases that a person, who suffered disability during employment, if appointed on a subordinate post than the post to which he was originally appointed prior to suffering the disability, has to be granted benefit of continuity of service.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner had suffered paralytic stroke and thereby suffered disability before the enactment of the Central Act described as Persons with Disability [equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 05. 11. 1996 of pre-mature retirement of the petitioner was passed by the respondent after coming into force of the Disability Act, which came into force w. e. f 07. 02. 2006. The petitioner was admittedly appointed by the respondent [dtc] on the post of Conductor in 1982 and this appointment took place before he suffered the disability on account of paralytic stroke. He was later appointed by the respondents on a subordinate post of Peon w. e. f. 27. 12. 1996. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of law laid down by this court in the aforementioned three judgments. However, Mr. J S Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contended that the petitioner was pre-maturely retired on 05. 11. 1996 and was later re-employed on the post of Peon w. e. f 27. 12. 1996, which, according to him, the petitioner gladly accepted and did not challenge the impugned orders for a long period of about eight years before filing the present writ petition in 2004 From the record, it appears that the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent on 27. 11. 2002 asking it to grant the reliefs as claimed by him in the present writ petition. The said representation of the petitioner seems to have not been decided by the respondents till now. Mr. Bhasin, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that in view of delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition, the petitioner may not be held entitled to arrears of wages till the date of filing of this petition.