KRISHNA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a J.B.T. Teacher with the State of Haryana in January, 1966. She suffered from an eye disease in 1979 and was treated by the doctors in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. She did not improve and became blind. She applied for leave and was sanctioned extra-ordinary leave without pay on medical grounds for the period 16.10.1980 to 31.8.1982. Her application was supported by a certificate issued by the doctors attending on her. Thereafter she applied for premature retirement on September 1, 1982 with a request that she be given the benefit of invalid pension as per her entitlement under the rules governing her employment. According to Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (for short, 'the Rules'), invalid person is awarded to a public servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for public service. On the submission of a medical certificate of incapacity for further service such a person is required to be invalidated from service without delay. Further, an officer applying for an invalid pension has to submit a medical certificate after being examined by a Medical Board. The applicant has also to produce a letter to show that the Head of his/her Office or Department is aware of his/her intention to appear before a Medical Officer/Medical Board. The petitioner kept representing to the Department that she should be made to retire from service as she had become blind and that she be paid invalid pension under the Rules but the Government took no action in this regard. The respondents did not respond to any of her representations with the result that she remained in service without work and without leave from September 1, 1982. It was then in the year 1988 that she filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the respondents be directed to retire her from service on medical grounds with effect from September 1, 1982 and grant her invalid pension. Notice of motion was issued on October 11, 1988 but despite service no one appeared on behalf of the Department. If the Department had responded even to the notice of motion issued by this court, the agony of the petitioner of waiting here in this Court for a number of years could have been avoided but this was not to be. The motion bench was constrained to admit the writ petition on December 20, 1988 as there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. This petition came up for hearing before J. L. Gupta, J, on August 14, 1992. The learned Judge directed that an actual date notice be sent to the respondents for September 28, 1992. The respondents have put in appearance through Assistant Advocate General, Haryana but no reply has been filed.

(2.) Mr. S. S. Goripuria, Assistant Advocate General Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents has after obtaining instructions from the departmental representative informed me that a Medical Board was constituted some time in January, 1989 which examined the petitioner and issued a certificate on 3.2.1989 to the effect that she had become invalid. She was retired on medical grounds on 23.3.1989 and since then she is drawing the invalid pension to which she is entitled under the Rules.

(3.) The only grievance of the petitioner now is that she should have been given the invalid pension with effect from September 1, 1982 i.e. the date from which she sought retirement on medical grounds as she had become blind. She kept representing to the Department but there was no response to any of the representations with the result that she remained in service till 23.2.1989 without any pay and nor was she granted any leave and having become blind she could not do any work. According to Rule 5.18 of the Rules when a government employee has submitted as medical certificate of incapacity he is required to be invalidated from service without delay. The Government took more than 6 years in constituting a Board that could medically examine the petitioner for certifying that she had become invalid. Obviously there was no fault of the petitioner for this delay and the fault lies squarely with the Department.