Sh. Govind Singh vs H.P State Electricity Board Ltd & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 76 HP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA

                                                          CWP No. 4946 of 2020




                                                                                .
                                                          Decided on: 2.1.2021





    Sh. Govind Singh                                                                 Petitioner.
                            Versus





    H.P State Electricity Board Ltd & others                                        Respondents.
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner:
    For the respondents:
                           r                 to  Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
                                                  Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate, for

                                                  respondents No.1 to 3.

                                                  Mr. Ajay Vaidy, Sr. Additional


                                                  Advocate General with Mr. J.S Guleria,
                                                  Deputy     Advocate   General     for
                                                  respondent No.4.




                                                  (Through video conferencing).





    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

As disclosed through page 29 of the paper book, a,

permanent disability of 43%, appertaining to, the, right lower limb,

of the writ petitioner, becomes encumbered upon him, whereupon,

he becomes precluded to perform heavy manual labour.

2. On the previous date, the learned counsel for the

respondent-Board was directed, to, purvey instructions to this

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

Court, whether in consonance with the relevant guidelines, and,

.

norms, the afore per centum of disability, does entitle, the writ

petitioner, to, not perform heavy manual labour, and, whether he

can be assigned lighter duties, in the Office, of the respondent-

Board. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, has,

on instructions meted to him, submitted that the afore per centum of

disability, does preclude, the writ petitioner, to, perform heavy

manual labour, and, hence can be deployed against a seat

appertaining to billing work. The afore submission addressed

before this Court by the learned counsel, for the respondent-Board,

is, accepted by the learned counsel, for the petitioner, thereupon the

writ petition becomes infructuous, and, is disposed of as such.

3. Moreover, given the submission, addressed before this

Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that, against

the afore post, a vacancy, is existing at Sub Division, Chirgaon,

thereupon the respondent-Board, is, directed to consider the posting

of the writ petitioner, at the afore station, hence for a tenure as

becomes prescribed in the relevant guidelines, and, the respondent

is further directed, to, thereat assign a seat appertaining to billing

...3...

work, upto his disability becoming re-assessed, by the validly

.

constituted medical board. The respondent-Board is also directed,

to, release the outstanding salary of the writ petitioner. All pending

applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.

    2nd January, 2021
                               to               ( Sureshwar Thakur),
                                                      Judge.

                                        ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ),

    (priti)                                             Judge.