ROSHNI DEVI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, is the wife of one Vijay Sudarshan Sharma, who had been working in the 1st respondent organization-Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (HVPN). During the course of his (petitioner's husband) service, he had fallen mentally ill and after prolonged treatment when his situation did not seem to improve, his medical fitness was considered by the Medical Board and having been not found fit for service, the petitioner's husband was retired on an application made by her. The order of termination of service is seen to have followed a request from the petitioner herself seeking for premature retirement for her husband on account of a chronic mental illness. The order the premature retirement was made on 10.07.2002 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) The petitioner served a notice in the year 2008 complaining that the termination of service was bad in law, since the mental disability had occurred during the course of his employment and he ought to have been assigned to some other duty which could have still made possible his continuation in employment, in terms of protection granted under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called, 'the 1995 Act'). The petitioner also sought in the alternative for being considered for compassionate appointment for her son in terms of the scheme which had been issued on 31.08.1995(Annexure P-7), under the terms of which, the facility of compassionate appointment to a dependent of the employee was to be extended also to persons, who had been declared medically unfit/blind/handicapped by the special Medical Board or retired on or before attaining the age of 55 years in the case of class-1, II and III officer and 54 in the case of class IV employees. The notice had not been responded and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The contention of the respondent in defence is that the order of premature retirement itself was made only on the request of the petitioner and the same could not be reopened on the protection given under the Act under Section 47 at a belated time after nearly 6 years after his retirement. According to the respondents, they had never forced the petitioner's husband to retire from service during all the time when he was undergoing treatment for his mental disorder. It was not as if the petitioner's illiteracy was exploited by the respondent for foisting premature retirement on the petitioner's husband. On the other hand, the petitioner had come to office on several occasions with the brother of the employee named Suraj Bhan Sharma and he had even given a letter on 09.11.1996 setting out the circumstances under which he could not be attending the office. On a plea made for compassionate appointment, the response was that it was not a case of retirement made by the Nigam but a case of voluntary retirement and as such, the case was not covered under the instructions of the year 2003.