Shri Jai Veer Singh S/O Sh. Dharam ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1182 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender jain, J.

1. Nobody has been appearing for the respondent. On the last date of hearing, I directed Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate, who was present in Court to take instructions. Today he also is not present. No counter affidavit has been filed. Rule was issued in this writ petition on 12.5.1994. The petitioner has filed an application (CM 1523/2001). Reply to that application has been filed.

2. The fact that the petitioner who was working as a conductor with the respondent met with an accident on 11.12.1991. In view of the accident the respondent passed a Resolution No. 23 for re-designation his post to subordinate post on medical ground. On 20.8.1993 the petitioner was retired prematurely on medical ground. The petitioner has challenged his compulsory retirement.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the judgment of this Court in Shri Om Pal Sharma Singh v. DTC (CW 4311/97) order dated 3.12.1999, Baljeet Singh v. DTC (CWP No. 4278/99) judgment and order dated 10.12.1999, Sh. Raj Pal Singh v. DTC (CWP No. 825/99), judgment and order dated 18.1.2001 and Sh. Prem Pal Singh v. DTC (CWP No. 825/99) judgment and order dated 18.1.2000, the question involved in the writ petition is no more res integra. Reply to this application has been filed. The respondent has not refuted as to whether against the judgments relied upon by the petitioner any appeal has been preferred by the respondent Corporation. However, the respondent relied in the reply on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ismail v. U.P. Road Transport Corporation 1991 SCC 1103. To my mind Mohd. Ismail's case is not applicable to the present case.

4. Following the ratio laid down in the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I quash the order of the compulsory retirement dated 20.8.1993. Respondents are directed to take the petitioner back into service and pay the salary from the date when the respondents stopped paying salary to the petitioner. However, it will be for the respondent to decide as to what kind of duties are assigned to the petitioner keeping in view the disability of the petitioners. Rule is made absolute.

5. Writ petition stands disposed of.

6. CM 1523/2001 also stands disposed of.