MADAN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 29.07.1998 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired on medical grounds.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined the respondents' Department on regular basis on 15.10.1985. In the month of October, 1997, the petitioner suffered from Cirrhosis (an eye disease). On account of the disease suffered, he was declared medically unfit by the doctor of the PGIMER, Chandigarh to drive heavy vehicle. On the basis of medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Ambala, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for driving vehicles and ultimately, he was compulsorily retired, vide order dated 29.07.1998 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved against the order dated 29.07.1988, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority when no action was taken on the appeal filed, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CWP No. 14422 of 2012, wherein a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal within a stipulated period. In pursuance of the order passed, the respondent No.2 decided the appeal filed by the petitioner and rejected the same, vide order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-5), whereby the said appeal was rejected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to service. He refers to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') which provides that the service of an employee cannot be dispensed with prematurely and if it is not possible to adjust him against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. The learned counsel further contends that as per the doctor of PGI, Chandigarh, the petitioner had been advised to perform the light duties and the petitioner was willing to continue his services on a suitable post but the Department chose to compulsorily and illegally retired him at the age of 45 years forcing the petitioner to suffer a huge financial loss and emotional stress. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 29.07.1998 (Annexure P-1) and dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) are liable to be set aside, being illegal and contrary to law.