RANJITSINH NATHUSINH CHAVDA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr Dagli waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a daily rated driver by the respondent-Corporation after following the selection procedure. The petitioner was thereafter made permanent on the post of driver by order dated 14-10-1999 w.e.f. 1-9-1999 in the pay scale of Rs.800-2389. While on duty, the petitioner suffered a paralytic stroke on 27-3-2000. The petitioner took treatment for the same initially at Vijapur his home town and thereafter the petitioner was admitted to the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad as an indoor patient and again the petitioner took the treatment at the Jamnabai General Hospital, Baroda. The Jamnabai Hospital issued Certificate dated 8-12-2000 regarding permanent unfitness of the petitioner for the job of a driver. On 22-1-2001, the said Hospital issued another certificate clarifying that the petitioner had became permanently unfit for the job of a driver but the petitioner was in a position to work as a peon, that is, for light duty work. The said certificate is produced at Annexure "C" to the petition. However, the respondent-Corporation by letter dated 5-1-2002 required the petitioner to resign from service. The petitioner requested the Corporation to give light duty job to the petitioner as per the re-categorisation formula provided in the general standing orders of the respondent-Corporation. Since there was no reply from the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner filed the present petition in May, 2002. However, before this Court issued notice to the respondents in June, 2002, the Divisional Controller of the S.T. Corporation, Baroda issued the termination order on the ground that the petitioner was permanently unfit for the post of driver and that the petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of clause No.37(7) of the settlement dated 21-12-1989. Hence the petitioner has also challenged the said termination order by amendment which has been granted.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. Rathod for the petitioner has submitted that there is a settlement between the ST Corporation and employees' Union regarding the benefits to be given to the employees who are rendered unfit on account of accident while the employees are on duty. The relevant sub-clause (7) of clause 37 (as translated) reads as under:-