HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 1.2.2002 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner has wrongly been retired from service on medical ground, which, according to the petitioner is in contravention of provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1 of 1996) (for short "the Act"). Prayer in the petition is also for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to take the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor in Haryana Roadways, Sirsa on 12.11.1982. During the service, he contracted the disease, namely, 'diffuse brain atrophy and parkinsonism'. In view of such disease, the petitioner remained absent and was accordingly suspended from his post and subsequently the department authorities, after reviewing the case of the petitioner, reinstated him into service but the petitioner could not join the duties and submitted his leave along with the medical certificates. The case of the petitioner was referred for medical examination by the Chief Medical Officer, Yamuna Nagar, who further referred the case to the Chief Medical Officer, Ambala and Medical Board constituted at Ambala, after examining the petitioner, found that the petitioner was actually suffering from the aforementioned disease and the respondentauthorities, after obtaining the opinion from the department of PGI, Rohtak, found him to be not fit for the post of Conductor and accordingly, vide impugned order, his services have been dispensed with, in essence, has been compulsorily retired as per Rule 5.12 of the Civil Services Rules Vol.II, Part 1. Mr.Mohit Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, which reads as under:-

(3.) He further submits that in view of the aforementioned provisions, the petitioner should have been adjusted on some other suitable post, where he could have performed his duties and the manner in which his services have been dispensed with ought not to have been resorted to. In support of his contention, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and Anr. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, 2008 AIR(SC) 990 to contend that even where the petitioner has been drawing the pension, the other person after having knocked the door of the court has been given benefit of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act.