JAGAT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagat Singh, petitioner (since deceased) joined the Punjab State Electricity Board-respondent (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) on 12.4.1963, as a lineman. While repairing an electric line by climbing on a electric pole on 13.12.1988, he fell down and received multiple injuries. There is no dispute that the petitioner remained admitted in PGI and became 100% physically disabled. The disability arose in the course of his service with the respondent. During pendency of the instant writ petition, Jagat Singh, died and his legal representatives were brought on record. It is stated that the petitioner was admitted in the PGI Chandigarh for his treatment and discharged on 8.5.1990. A certificate of 80% disability was issued by the PGI. Unfortunately signatures of the petitioner were not attested on the certificate. The petitioner who contacted the concerned Department of PGI was told that record of his treatment was not traceable. Ultimately, Civil Surgeon, Ropar, issued him 100% disability certificate on 18.2.1991. The respondent invalidated him from service under Rule 5.18 of the Civil Service Rules Volume-II, vide order dated 6.5.1992 (Annexure P-1) retrospectively w.e.f 18.2.1991.

(2.) The petitioner was thereafter informed vide letter dated 16.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) that the excess payment of compensation has been made to him under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act of 1923"), therefore, vide letter dated 13.8.1993 (Annexure P-3) total deduction of Rs. 64,337.05P was made. The petitioner has thus prayed for quashing these communications Annexures P-2 and P-3 and also challenged the legality of action in not counting 1 year and 2 months of service for pensionary benefits by declaring the aforesaid period as unqualified service. Such service was liable to be counted under Regulation 8.57(6) of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Main Services Regulations, 1972, Volume-I Part-I (for brevity a "The Regulations of 1972"). The respondents have wrongly treated extraordinary leave without sanctioning half pay leave of 240 days available to his leave account under Regulation 8.54(c) of the Regulations of 1972. The challenge in this petition was also to the wrong calculation of compensation under the Act of 1923 stating that less amount of compensation has been paid.

(3.) In reply, the respondents have not disputed that on 13.12.1988, the petitioner while working on the electrical pole had fallen and suffered injuries and remained admitted in the hospital up to 5.1.1989. Initially he submitted a certificate of 80% disability. This certificate was not accepted as his signatures thereon were not attested by the issuing authority. He submitted another certificate dated 18.2.1991 issued by Civil Surgeon, Rupnagar, declaring 100% permanent physical impairment on 15.3.1991. Upon this certificate, the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 18.2.1991 vide order dated 6.5.1992 (Annexure P-1).