Delhi High Court
Mr. Vijender Singh S/O Shri Sarup ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation ... on 16 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VAD Delhi 606, 105 (2003) DLT 261, 2003 (69) DRJ 641, 2004 (1) SLJ 86 Delhi
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. The petitioner was appointed as conducted in the year 1984. On 14.2.1993, petitioner met with an accident causing loss of his right hand and was unable to perform the duties of a conductor. Petitioner was retired prematurely on medical grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that the retirement of the petitioner was in contravention of the circular dated 15.10.73 and 20.1.92 i.e., without being asked for option for redesignation on a subordinate or alternative post.
3. Mr. D.N. Vohra counsel for the petitioner has stated that in view of the judgment of Baljeet Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation DLT 286 and other decision passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court , the respondent is under an obligation to provide alternative suitable job to the persons who have incurred disability during the course of employment.
4. Mr. Vibhu Shankar counsel for the respondent has invited attention of the Court to the judgment of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Sadh Ram LPA 650/2002 decided on 19th September, 2002 by Division Bench of this Court. Mr. Vohra has contended that the said judgment can be distinguished. Division Bench in Sadh Ram's case (Supra) observed that order of termination was passed after coming into effect of the Disability Act. It was contended by Mr. Vibhu Shankar that in the present case the order of termination as well as disability was acquired by the petitioner prior to coming into effect of the Disability Act.
5. It was further contended that the disability acquired by the petitioner was prior to coming into force of the Disability Act and the order terminating the services of the petitioner was also passed prior to coming into force of the the Disability Act and therefore the reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in Baljeet Singh's case (Supra) is misplaced.
6. I find no force in the argument of counsel for the respondent. Even before coming into effect of the Disability Act, Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. SLP No. 1575/91, held on the basis of the policy of respondent which was in vogue at that time that respondent adopted the policy to rehabilitate the physically handicapped persons. If the respondents had their own policy as is reflected by the circulars dated 15.10.73 and 20.1.92, the Act which came subsequently has secured the said principle in the statute, intention of the legislature in enacting the said Act was to rehabilitate the persons who acquired disability during the course of employment by providing suitable alternative employment. Similarly, in State of Haryana Vs. Narender Kumar Chawla 1994 (4) SSC 460, Supreme Court held that in case of employees rendered physically handicapped during the course of employment, the Court has power to give directions regarding observation of such employee carrying a pay scale equal to that of his original post. Judging from any angle it cannot be said that the respondents are under no obligation to provide suitable alternative employment, keeping in view the disability of the petitioner in mind and on the basis of their own circulars.
7. The prayer is allowed. Petitioner be provided alternative suitable employment keeping in view the disability within a period of four weeks.
8. Writ petition is allowed.
9. Rule is made absolute.
