BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who suffered disability in terrorist attack way back in the year 1989, has filed the present petition impugning the communication dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure P-15), whereby he has been denied appointment in that category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner suffered a gun shot injury in spinal cord on 25.10.1989 at Ferozepur. Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur issued disability certificate on 18.7.1990 certifying him to be 100% disabled due to injury in the spinal cord on account of complete paraplegia. He further referred to document dated 3.11.2005, vide which the petitioner was granted ex-gratia amount and also sanctioned Rs. 2,500/- per month as sustenance allowance. Subsequently, a disability certificate was issued on 27.7.2006 to the petitioner certifying him to be 100% physically disabled. The government issued a policy on 21.11.2002 for giving appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post to the dependent members of the family of the person killed or 100% physically disabled in terrorist action or by security forces acting in-aid of civil power in the State. As the petitioner had suffered 100% disability in terrorist attack, he was eligible for appointment in that category. In terms of the policy, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk being fully eligible. Vide communication dated 26.9.2008, the petitioner was directed to appear in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur on 7.10.2008. The petitioner appeared along with all requisite documents but his candidature was not considered. The disability certificate issued in his favour was sent for verification. Despite repeated requests, nothing was done. Vide communication dated 15.4.2010, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur intimated Senior Medical Officer-Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur that record of the certificate already issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.7.2006 is not available being old. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to be examined again to consider his disability. Vide certificate issued on 15.11.2011, the disability of the petitioner was found to be 70%, however, it was opined that he is fit for a job which is sedentary in nature and does not require active movement during working hour.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment on the ground that his disability, which was checked in the year 2011 was found to be 70%, hence not entitled to appointment in the category of terrorist victim, is arbitrary for the reason that the earlier certificate issued in his favour in the year 2006 clearly established that the petitioner was 100% disabled. In case, the disability had reduced with the passage of time to some extent, the same will not make the petitioner ineligible for the post. The disability of the petitioner was to be considered at the time when his application for the job was considered.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the policy of the government provided that only 100% disabled persons could be offered appointment in the category of terrorist affected, the disability of the petitioner being 70%, his case was rightly rejected as the State could not go beyond the terms of the policy.