SARDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed by a Driver of the Haryana Roadways is directed against order dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure P -4) passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the ground of medical disability. The petitioner has claimed that in pursuance of his rights granted by Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity "Disability Act"), he is entitled to be employed on some alternate post by giving him light duty till the date of his superannuation. As a sequel to the aforesaid claim made by him, the petitioner has also challenged notification dated 4th June, 2005 (Annexure P - -2) issued by the State of Haryana in exercise of power under Sub Section 2 of Section 47 of the Disability Act exempting the post of drivers and conductors in the Haryana Roadways from the provisions of Section 47 of the Disability Act.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner was inducted in service on 1st March, 1987 as a Driver with the Haryana Roadways. At the time of his appointment, he was found medically fit for driving heavy vehicle. However, later on the petitioner filed an application for his medical examination and the Civil Surgeon, Gurgaon, - vide his letter dated 14th September, 2006 intimated to the General Manager, Haryana Roadways that the petitioner has been declared as unfit for driving heavy vehicle. On the basis of the aforesaid intimation, the petitioner was compulsorily retired, - -vide letter dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure P -4) with effect from 15th September, 2006 by invoking the provisions of Rule 5.18 of Punjab Civil Services Rule (Vol. II) for brevity "CSR Vol.II"). The petitioner has claimed that instead of retiring him compulsorily, he was entitled to be continued in service on a post with light duty as per the rights conferred on him by Section 47(1) of the Disability Act. In that regard, a reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kunal Singh versus Union of India : (2003) 4 S.C.C. 524 Accordingly, it has been claimed that the petitioner has acquired the disability of becoming unfit for driving heavy vehicle during the course of his employment and the provisions of Disability Act would fully applicable to him. The petitioner has also challenged instructions dated 20th August, 1992 (Annexure P -1) issued by Transport Commissioner, Haryana, stipulating that disabled driver can be compulsorily retired as per notification dated 4th June, 2005 (Annexure P -2), which has exempted the posts of drivers and conductors in the Haryana Roadways from the provisions of Section 47 of the Disability Act.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, we are of the view that the petitioner had rendered more than 19 years of service and only on the ground of medical unfitness, the respondents were fully within their right to board him out of service in pursuance of provisions of Rule 5.18 Punjab CSR Vol. II. The aforesaid Rule can be read with advantage which is as under :