K.R. ANAND Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 13. 8. 2004 passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways Delhi (Annexure P-5) maintaining his earlier order dated 26. 7. 2002. By the aforementioned order, the petitioner has been retired from service w. e. f. 31. 7. 2002 from the post of driver on the ground that he was found unfit for serving as Driver on account of loss of vision in left eye and that he was incapacitated for further service as driver in the Haryana Roadways. The petitioner has been offered alternative job on the post of helper-tyreman from where he is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31. 5. 2017.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined as driver with the Haryana Roadways on 13. 2. 1990. When he was on duty while driving Bus No. HR-26-A-1154 belonging to Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot enroute from Delhi to Shimla an accident occurred with another Bus No. HR-37-0342 of Himachal Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation. The petitioner sustained injuries as reflected in his medical examination. On 20. 6. 2002 he was eventually medically examined by the Medical Board at P. G. I. , Rohtak and he was declared 'unfit for driving duty. On 31. 7. 2002, respondent No. 3 passed an order of retirement of the petitioner from the post of driver and gave him alternative job of Helper-tyreman in the lower pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/ -. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 2000-5150/- as basic pay plus usual allowances at the time of passing the impugned order dated 31. 7. 2002.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a representation on 16. 9. 2002 but no action was taken. On 22. 3. 2004 his representation was rejected by the Joint State Transport Controller, Haryana. The aforementioned fact was disclosed by the respondents in their written statement filed by them in reply to C. W. P. No. 5382 of 2003 by the petitioner. The aforementioned petition was eventually decided on 20. 5. 2004. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 31. 7. 2002 (P-1) after issuing directions to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act 1995 (for brevity the 'disability Act)' and instructions of 1992. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 13. 8. 2004 (P5) which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The operative part of which reads as under: The Medical Board found him unfit on account of loss of vision in his left eye incapacitated for further service as driver. In Haryana Roadways, vide his endst. No. PGIMS/ms/cell II/2002/i003 dated 20. 6. 2002. Since Shri Rupinder Singh Driver No. 58 has been found unfit for driving, he cannot be retained in the department as driver and retired on 31. 7. 2002 on medical ground. The petitioner could not be appointed in the workshop on technical post in the scale equivalent to driver as he does not fulfill the requisite qualification required for an employee to be appointed in the workshop i. e. I. T. Certificate. Even otherwise Class-Ill posts in the workshop are technical one. However, Class-IV post of Helper Tyreman in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- has been given to the petitioner as per the instructions dated 20. 8. 1992 of the Transport Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh and the claimant Shri Rupinder Singh has joined as Helper Tyreman on 1. 8. 2002. The provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') cannot be applicable in this case as there is neither any post exists in the pay scale of driver i. e. Rs. 4000-6000/- except to technical post, nor can be created. For technical posts specific qualification is required. Shri Rupinder Singh has no such technical qualification, hence he cannot be appointed on technical post. In these circumstances explained above, I find no merit in his representation and the same is rejected being devoid of merits.