RUPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated August 13, 2004 passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways Delhi (Annexure P-5) maintaining his earlier order dated July 26, 2002. By the aforementioned order, the petitioner has been retired from service w.e.f. July 31, 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 July 31, 2002.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined as driver with the Haryana Roadways on February 13, 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 June 20, 2002 he was eventually medically examined by the Medical Board at P.G.I., Rohtak and he was declared unfit for driving duty. On July 31, 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 July 31, 2002.

(3.) The petitioner filed a representation on September 16, 2002 but no action was taken. On March 22, 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 May 20, 2004. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dated July 31, 2002 (P-1) after issuing directions to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (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 August 13, 2004 (P-5) which is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant petition. The operative part of which reads as under: