Shri Satyabir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 359 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 382/2000 decided by learned Single Judge on 10.5.2000 as well as Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. CWP 5700/2000 decided by another learned Single Judge of this court on 24.1.2002.

3. Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondents wants to persuade me to take a contrary view to what has been held in aforesaid two authorities. Mr. Sabharwal has contended that the words 'during his service' occurring under Section 47 under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 which came into operation w.e.f. 1.1.1996 has t be interpreted 'during the course of his employment'. Section 47 of the aforesaid Act is as follows :

"Non discrimination in Government employment :-

(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service."

4. If I agree to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that 'during his service' has to be read or be substituted 'during the course of employment' then this Court will be substituting the words 'during the course of employment' which the legislature in its wisdom has not used in the section. To my mind, the legislature consciously has used the word 'disability during his service' and has not defined that the disability must be one which should occur during the course of employment. I do not see that there is amy distinction laid down in Section 47 of the Act so as to make a difference whether the person suffering a disability during the course of the employment or outside the course of employment. What is required is that the disability must be during the period of service. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the contention of the respondent and agreeing with the ratio of the judgment in Rajbir Singh's case (supra) and CWP No. 382/2000, I allow the petition and quash the order of compulsory retirement.

5. Mr. Sabharwal says that some amount has been paid to the workman. In view of the order passed today, the amounts so paid by the respondent be adjusted towards his dues.

6. Rule is made absolute. Petition is allowed. CM 11948/2000 also stands disposed of.