Delhi High Court
Chander Shekhar vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 15 September, 2015
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C).3106 /2013
% Judgment dated 15th September, 2015
CHANDER SHEKHAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Uday Vir Singh, D/Asstt. on behalf of
the Management.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge to the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.4.2012 passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
"Tribunal").
2. On 25.08.1998, the petitioner was appointed as a driver with respondent
no.1. The petitioner attained 55 years age on 19.05.2010, the age of
retirement fixed by respondent no.1. The petitioner was given benefit of
Regulation 19(f) of the Office Order No.99 dated 04.10.1963 whereby the
drivers of DTU (the earlier nomenclature of respondent no.1) were to get
benefit of the enhanced age, subject to their being found fit after medical
examination for a period of one year. The petitioner was granted extension
for the first term having been found fit. The petitioner was also given
extension for the second term upto 31.05.2012, however, before the second
term could commence, he met with an accident and fractured his hands and
remained under medical treatment. Although the doctors declared him fit,
but he was not allowed to resume duty by respondent no.1 and was asked to
appear before the Medical Board of respondent no.1 Corporation. Upon
examination, the Medical Board declared the petitioner unfit on
03.08.2011. A communication was addressed to the petitioner on
04.08.2011 informing him of the decision and he was retired prematurely
from the services of the Corporation, which led to filing of an OA before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the OA, the
petitioner also made a representation, hearing was also granted by the
Corporation to the petitioner, however, the representation was rejected. On
30.04.2012, the OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed, which has led to
the filing of the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner in the OA prayed that he should be permitted to continue his
service till the age of 60 years or, in the alternative, he should be given an
appointment against the post of Security/Ticket Tally Clerk, or any other
post of equivalent pay scale. Taking into consideration that the age of
retirement fixed for drivers is 55 years, the Tribunal rejected the OA filed
by the petitioner herein.
4. The arguments raised before the Tribunal have also been raised before us
today. The Tribunal has also taken note of the various decisions of the
Delhi High Court wherein it has been held that to extend the service of the
drivers who retire at the age of 55 years, can act as a driver, subject to
medical fitness on year to year basis. The plea of benefit of Section 47 of
the Disability Act was also considered. We find it useful to extract paras 5
and 6 of the orders passed by the Tribunal, which read as under:
"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record. We are of the view that
the applicant is not entitled to any relief and the matter is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the High Court
on 9.1.2009 whereby the High Court in a common judgment
has disposed of LPA No.1241/2007, which judgment has been
reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 555 (DB) and also the
decision rendered by this Tribunal in V.R. Sharma v. DTC &
others (OA No.1897/2009) decided on 6.1.2010 and Jeet Singh
v. DTC (OA No.2707/2011) decided on 15.3.2012 as also in
terms of the provisions contained in office order No.99 dated
4.10.1963. At this stage, it will be useful to quote Regulation 10
(f) of the aforesaid office order, which thus reads:-
"(f) The drivers of the DTU shall got the benefit of
the enhanced age subject to their being found fit in every
respect after their medical examination by the medical
officer/officers of the DTU. Every year after they have
attained the age of 55 years. The first examination shall
be carried out immediate after or before they have
attained the age of 55 years. If as a result of such medical
examination, they are found unfit for further service, they
would be retired from the service of the Undertaking
without any notice."
6. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Resolution, it is
evident that age of superannuation of the driver is 55 years but
the competent authority in its discretion has been authorized to
give extension to the driver, who has attained the age of 55
years in case he is found fit in every respect after thorough
medical examination by the medical officer of DTU and such
extension shall be from year to year basis. In the instant case,
the applicant, who has attained the age of superannuation on
19.5.2010, was given extension on two occasions. When the
applicant met with an accident on 30.4.2011 and suffered
fracture in both the hands, he was declared unfit by the medical
board on 3.8.2011. He was discharged from service w.e.f.
4.8.2011 vide impugned order. Thus, according to us, the
applicant has got no legal right to remain in service for a period
upto 60 years or to claim alternative appointment on another
post, as he has not incurred the disability before attaining the
age of superannuation but he has incurred disability after
reaching the age of superannuation of 55 years. Hence the
applicant is not entitled to the benefits under Section 47 of the
Disability Act ibid in terms of the decision rendered by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Dharam Pal
(supra) (with connected matters) whereby in paragraph 35 the
High Court of Delhi has made the following observations:
"35. The age of superannuation of a Driver, under
the management is 55 years. Section 47 of the Disability
Act does not ipso facto extends the tenure of service of a
Driver with Delhi Transport Corporation, the benefits
granted to such drivers despite incurring disability during
tenure of his service that is upto 55 years would not
extent his service beyond 55 so as to enable him to
continue in service may be at a lower post for which the
normal age of retirement is 60. This is because the
benefit of such post has been made available to the said
person as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Act and
not otherwise."
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully examined the
judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has passed a well reasoned order
based on the decision rendered by this Court and correctly applied the same
to the facts of this case. We find no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
pst
