NIRMAL RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 26th August, 2003, whereby, an original application filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') was dismissed.

(2.) SHRI Yash Pal, deceased husband of the applicant was employed in the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal (for short 'NDRI') as an Attendant Grade -I, with effect from 24th January, 1991. He met with an accident on 25th February, 1993 and remained admitted as indoor patient in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 26th February, 1993 to 19th March, 1993. As per the medical opinion, Shri Yash Pal was found to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind, - -vide the report dated 5th August, 1994. A representation was submitted by Shri Yash Pal on 11th October, 1995 for his reexamination by the Medical Board on the ground of improvement of his physical condition. However, he was examined by the Medical Board only in the year 2002 and, - -vide report dated 22nd May, 2002, it was found that there is no improvement in the condition of the applicant. On the basis of such report, an order was passed on 11th June, 2002 terminating the services of Shri Yash Pal with effect from 13th August, 1994. Unfortunately, Shri Yash Pal died on 13th July, 2002. Aggrieved against the termination of his services, the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunals by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), wherein the applicant claimed terminal benefits as well as appointment for her son on compassionate ground.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent relies upon Rule 2(2) of the Rules and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules), 1972 (for short 'the Leave Rules'), to contend that Yash Pal would be deemed to be invalidated out of service on the expiry of six months of leave i.e., the maximum leave which could be granted under Rule 20 of the Leave Rules. Thus, the order of termination has been rightly passed by the competent authority. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent was confronted with the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilites (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), which contemplates that services of an employee acquiring disability during service, cannot be terminated.