NAYAZ AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner were sought to be brought to an end as he was served with the notice dated 6th Dec. 1993. The petitioner approached this Court and an order was passed by this Court on 23rd Dec. 1993 directing respondents not to terminate services of the petitioner till further orders. The petitioner is continuing in service.

(2.) The petitioner was declared to be medically unfit. He was, however, given an option to prefer an appeal. According to the petitioner, he has preferred an appeal and this appeal has not been decided so far. According the petitioner, the appeal has been preferred by him after filing of this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his client is not medically unfit and in any case an opportunity ought to have been given to him for getting this examined and redressed before the Appellate Authority. He also submits that the petitioner cannot be thrown out of services. If he is not medically fit for one job, then he can be given some other assignment. For this he placed reliance on the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chandla Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 519 : 1994(2) S.C.T. 571. In the above case one arm of the employee was amputated due to the malady of cancer. He was unable to perform his duties. Even in this situation, the Supreme Court was of the view that alternate avenues of services could be provided to the concerned employee. In the present case, the petitioner suffered an injury while in service. His case is on better footing. The respondents are accordingly directed - (1) to take notice of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law by taking notice of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above and make an endeavour to adjust the petitioner on a suitable post, where he can discharge his duties. (2) The respondents would also take steps to protect last pay drawn by the petitioner. Same was the observation made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case also.