Dismissed

Fateh Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2013CWP/7456/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses three writ petitions seeking compassionate appointment for sons of retired drivers. The Court held that compulsory retirement due to weak vision does not constitute total disability, thus entitling the employees to compassionate appointment for dependants.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissing the claim for appointment of sons on compassionate grounds.

Fateh Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 7456 of 1994

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7456 of 1994

¶5

Date of Decision: 5.2.2013

Fateh Singh

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

This order shall dispose of a bunch of three petitions bearing CWP Nos. 7456, 10086 of 1994 and 2445 of 1996 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in all the writ petitions is identical. Further, CWP Nos. 10086 of 1994 and 2445 of 1996 were ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 7456 of 1994 by this Court vide orders dated 22.11.1994 and 16.2.1996, respectively. For brevity, the facts are extracted from CWP No. 7456 of 1994.

¶16

Petitioner-Fateh Singh has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India

¶17

CWP No. 7456 of 1994 -2-

¶18

for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner on compassionate ground in terms of the instructions dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure P-3) and judgments dated 11.11.1993 (Annexure P-4) and 7.3.1994 (Annexure P- 5).

¶19

The petitioner joined as Driver in the year 1973 on regular basis in Transport Department and his date of superannuation was 30.4.2002. He was compulsory retired from service on 5.1.1993 as he had become unfit to drive heavy vehicle. After his retirement, the petitioner moved an application to the respondents to appoint his son Surinder Kumar, who is a matriculate, on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, his son was to be appointed as per the instructions dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure P-3) and on the basis of the judgments passed by this Court (Annexures P-4 and P-5). As the son of the petitioner was not appointed, he sent a legal notice dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure P-6) to the respondents by registered post. Since, no action was taken on the legal notice (Annexure P-6), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

¶20

Learned State counsel referred to paras 4 and 5 of the written statement and argued that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not justified. It was urged that the petitioner was compulsory retired on 5.1.1993 as he was unable to drive vehicles due to weak vision. The petitioner had not become totally blind or Nakara, i.e. totally disabled and, therefore, he could not claim compassionate appointment for his son.

¶21

CWP No. 7456 of 1994 -3-

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. It would be apposite to reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the written statement which are as under:-

¶23

“4. That para 4 of the petition is wrong and hence denied. No application of any kind for the appointment of the son of the petitioner was ever moved by the petitioner. Even otherwise the son of the petitioner is not entitled to be given appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Annexure P-2 as the petitioner was not fully declared blind or disabled and in pursuance of the decision taken vide letter bearing memo No. 5990-6010/A1/E3 dated 26.10.93 and Endst. No. 958-75/A-1/E3 dated 11.2.94 it was decided that only in case of those employees who became totally blind or NAKARA i.e. totally disabled and not those employees/drivers who become unable to drive vehicles due to weak visions. The copies of the letters dt. 26.10.93 and 11.2.94 are Annexure R-1 and R-2 respectively. Instructions dt. 23.11.92 Annexure P-3 are otherwise also not relevant to the case of the petitioner as he has already been paid the compensation after following the formula in term of the judgment in case of Anand Bihari vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corp. as referred to above. The copy of the letter adopting the said method/formula is

¶24

CWP No. 7456 of 1994

¶25

-4-

¶26

annexure R-3.

¶27

If the employment in every case is to be given to the dependant of the retiree then there would be an apprehension of misusing this benefit as any employee just before few years or few months from the date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation would get himself medically unfit by pretending that his vision has become weak and so his dependant be absorbed and in this way he would secure a job for his dependant by taking the undue advantage of such benefit.

¶28

That para 5 of the petition is wrong and hence denied in view of the submissions made in para 4 above. However in case of CWP No. 3664 of 1993, Hawa Singh Vs. State of Haryana and CWP No. 1002 of 1994 Prabhu Ram Vs. State of Haryana i.e. Annexure P-4 and P-5, the respondent State of Haryana is going to file the Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the said judgment.”

¶29

The issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether the son of the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed by way of compassionate appointment where the petitioner had superannuated on the ground that he had become unfit to drive heavy vehicles due to weak vision.

¶30

CWP No. 7456 of 1994 -5-

¶31

The matter is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court adjudicating identical issue under similar circumstances in State of Haryana and others v. Hawa Singh, 1995(4) RSJ 800 , had negated the claim for compassionate appointment and held as under:-

¶32

“5. There is no dispute that respondents had not produced any certificate of unfitness from the Special Medical Board saying that they had become blind or Nakara while in service. The medical certificate produced by them from the Civil Surgeon only certifies that they were medically unfit for heavy vehicles. But that does not mean that they have become blind or completely unfit for any service. Moreover, they being the employees of the Haryana Roadways, the communication dated 20.8.1992 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana shall be applicable in their case because it deals specifically with the Drivers who become medically unfit to continue as drivers in service of the Haryana Roadways. That communication does not speak of giving an employment to any of the dependants of such Drivers only on the ground that they have become medically unfit for heavy vehicles. It is an admitted position that the respondents who were Drivers of heavy vehicles have not become blind, but due to occupational hazards their eyesight has become

¶33

CWP No. 7456 of 1994

¶34

-6-

¶35

weak and because of that they have been retired from the service of the Haryana Roadways.

¶36

According to us their case is fully covered by the view expressed by this Court in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra), where this Court held that long services of Bus Drivers of a State Road Transport Corporation, on ground of their defective or subnormal eyesight developed during course of employment, should not be terminated because that will be unjustified, inequitable and discriminatory. This Court also directed to frame scheme for providing alternative jobs along with retirement benefits. It is true that this Court said that in case of non-availability of alternative jobs, additional compensation proportionate to the length of service rendered by them should be given. In this background, the High Court was not justified in directing that one of the dependants of the respondents be given a suitable job commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed by him.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court are set aside. We direct the appellants to give an alternative job to the respondents strictly following the judgment of this Court in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

¶38

CWP No. 7456 of 1994

¶39

-7-

¶40

(supra). Only in exceptional circumstances, where it is not possible to adjust them in any alternative job, then they shall be paid compensation as indicated in the said judgment of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶41

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. Thus, finding no merit in these writ petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.

¶42

February 5, 2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

¶43

CWP No. 7456 of 1994 -8-

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶45

CWP No. 10086 of 1994

¶46

Date of Decision: 5.2.2013

¶47

Raja Ram