Mahipal Singh vs Delhi Transport Corpn. And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 988 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Rule With consent of parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the respondent Corporation in August 1982. The petitioner sustained injury on 9.10.1998 while returning from duty. As a consequence of the injury the petitioner's right leg had to be amputated and the petitioner was assessed at 60% disability. The petitioner was retired prematurely on 22.11.1999. It may be also relevant to state that the petitioner has placed a circular dated 4.2.2000 of the respondent on record to the effect that employees who sustained injury on account of accident while on duty may be suitably adjusted on alternative job/ duty during the period of injury pending consideration of the decision period of injury pending consideration of the decision to be taken in respect of rehabilitation of such employees in view of certain judgments of this Court.

The subsequent development after the filing of the petition is that the original petitioner Shri Mahipal Singh expired on 10.6.2001 and his legal heirs being his widow, two sons and mother were brought on record who are now the petitioners in the present petition.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which came into effect on 1.1.1996.

4. Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for respondent however contends that since the petitioner met with an accident not during the course of performance of his duty with the respondent, the protection of the Act would not be available.

5. The petitioner was met with accident while he was returning from duty. The issue raised by Mr. Sabharwal has been squarely dealt with in another judgment of this Court in CW 5700/2000 Rajbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others decided on 24th January, 2002. The said judgment took into account the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Baljeet Singh Vs. DTC, , holding that the Act being beneficially legislation and has to be construed liberally and such cases would be covered under the Act. Baljeet Singh case (supra) was affirmed right till the Supreme Court.

6. The observation of the learned Single Judge in CW 382/2000 Ashok Kumar Vs. DTC decided on 10.5.2000 to the effect that Section 47 of the Act does not lay down any distinction as to the places where the persons has suffered a disability was also taken note of.

7. In view of the aforesaid judgments the case of Shri Mahipal Singh would be squarely covered under the provisions of the Act.

8. Writ petition is thus allowed and the order of termination dated 22.11.1999 is hereby quashed. Shri Mahipal Singh would be notionaly treated to have taken back into service from the date when the respondent stopped paying full salary after termination of his services and would be treated as in continuous employment without any break in service till he expired on 10.6.2001. The petitioner's case would thereafter be treated as of an employee who had expired during service. The emoluments due to the petitioner for the period for which he would have served along with benefits which would arise on account of his death in service shall be calculated and paid to the present petitioners who are his legal heirs within a period of two months from today.

9. Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.5000/-.