PHOOLA SINGH Vs. UTTARAKHAND PARIVAHAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was a driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tanakpur, District Champawat. He met with an accident in the year 2007 and consequently suffered fracture in his right leg and thereafter became disabled as far as his abilities to drive a state carriage/bus was concerned.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the fact that the petitioner has met with an accident has been admitted in para 4 of the counter affidavit. On this, learned senior counsel for the respondent corporation has stated that he need not make any comments on this assertion. The only reason assigned by the respondents for not assigning any duties to the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been examined by a medical board. This is clearly wrong inasmuch as the petitioner has already been examined by a medical board, which is certified by the letter of the General Manager (Personnel), Headquarter Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, 117-INdira Nagar, Dehradun dated 7.12.2007 (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition).