MOOL CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order annexure 'D' by which power was exercised under Section 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Section 48 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972, came to be passed against the petitioner. This order was challenged in this court.

(2.) Petitioner was found to be medically unfit and therefore, action was taken with a view to retire him from service. The order referred to above was passed on 4th of April 1993. This reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has since been transferred to Asst. North-East and he is rendering active duty. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was not fit for doing one particular job, he should have been given other job. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to decision of Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 519 - One arm of employee amputated due to Sarcoma (Cancer) - Employee unable to perform duties of post he was holding. It was observed that every endeavour must be made to adjust him in a post where he could suitably discharge his duties. This aspect of the matter was considered in Article 21 of the Constitution of India also. What was said in para 7 is being noticed below :