OM PRAKAH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit challenging his retirement vide order dated 9.5.2003 under Rules 5.11 and 5.18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume -II, was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff joined as conductor with the defendants in the year 1982. He suffered problem in his eyes in the year 2001, when he was working in the Hisar Depot of the Haryana Roadways. On his request, the plaintiff was medically examined by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar, who referred him to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The Medical Board in its report dated 28.4.2003 opined that the plaintiff is not fit to serve as a conductor. On the basis of such report, the plaintiff was relieved vide order dated 9.5.2003. Subsequently, a request of the plaintiff for giving appointment to his dependent family member, was declined on 21.12.2004. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration, which has been dismissed by the Courts below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has referred to Bhagwan Dass and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 579, wherein the petitioner sought retirement and also requested for suitable job for his wife. Though the petitioner was retired but his wife was not given employment. The Hon'ble supreme Court held to the following effect: -