BALJEET SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -All these seven petitions raise identical question of law and are concerned with the interpretation of Section 47 of "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" (hereinafter referred to as The Act, for short) and other related provisions of the Act. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners are suffering from one or the other form of disability. But they were not disabled at the time of their birth nor when they entered service with the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DTC, for short). They were all hale and hearty, medically tit and were appointed to different posts in DTC after undergoing proper selection and were/are working in DTC as regular employees. Unfortunately, during their services they have suffered some or the other form of disability, as will be noticed when facts are narrated in each case. However, due to such disablement they are all slapped with the orders of premature retirement rendering them unemployed. The main challenge in the petition is of the following two different kinds namely; (a) in some cases the alleged disability from which they are suffering is not of the kind which could have entitled the employer to force premature retirement on them, or (b) even in those cases where disability is of the kind which has rendered them incapacitated to perform the job which they were performing, the action of the premature retirement is challenged on the ground that petitioners could have been given alternate jobs which they could perform notwithstanding such disability.

(3.) Before dealing with the problem of the nature mentioned above and in order to appreciate the same in proper perspective it would be relevant to note, in brief, the facts of each case.