Delhi High Court
Dtc vs Balram Sharma on 20 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 101 (2002) DLT 499, 2003 (66) DRJ 707
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against
the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2002
in C.W.P. No. 6077/2000.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-
3 On 03.02.1985, the respondent, who was working
as a Conductor, suffered injury during the course of
employment. As a result of the injury, he lost one
eye. On 24.03.200, the respondent prematurely retired
the appellant from services on the ground of impairment
of his eye. The respondent herein not satisfied with
the Order passed by the appellant herein filed a writ
petition being C.W.P. No. 6077/2000.
4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge
on the ground that according to provisions of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
the appellant herein was barred from terminating the
services of the respondent, as he had sustained
disability during the course of employment.
5. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the appellant DTC has filed the instant appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the injury sustained by the respondent
does not fall within the definition of disability as
provided by Section 2(i) of the Act. In order to
appreciate the said submission, we may notice Section
2(i) of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"2(i) "disability" means:-
(i) blindness;
(ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy-cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
(v) locomotor disability;
(vi) mental retardation;
(vii) mental fitness;
7. Learned counsel also invited our attention to
Section 2(u) of the Act, which is in the following
terms:-
"2(u) "persons with low vision" means a person
with impairment of visual functioning even after
treatment or standard refractive correction but
who uses or is potentially capable of using
vision for the planning or execution of a task
with appropriate assistive device."
8. A joint reading of Sections 2(i) and 2(u) of the
Act leaves no manner of doubt that disability sufferred
by the respondent herein falls within the purview of
Section 2(i) of the Act.
9. The respondent as a result of the injury to one
of the eyes acquired low vision. Low vision is covered
by the definition of disability as given in Section
2(i) of the Act. According to Section 2(u) of the Act,
a person with low vision means a person with impairment
of visual functioning even after treatment or standard
refractive correction. It is not the case of the
appellant that even after use of glasses, the low
vision of the respondent herein could not be corrected.
It goes without saying that a Conductor with one eye
will not be in a position to execute the task assigned
to him even with appropriate assistive devices. This
being the position, the case of the respondent, who
suffered disability during his services, was totally
covered by the provisions of Section 47 of the Act and
his services could not be terminated prematurely.
10. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find
any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
