State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Hawa Singh
Email(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12415 of 1994)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12415 of 1994)
State Road Transport corporation retiring Drivers on grounds of defective or abnormal eye sight during years of employment – Held following Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation JT 1990 (4) SC 794 that Drivers be given alternative job and additional compensation be paid only in exceptional circum-stances where it is not possible to adjust them in such jobs – Order of High Court directing employment to dependents are set aside.
There is no dispute that respondents had not produced any certificated of unfitness from the Special Medical Board saying that they had become blind or Nakara while in service. The medi-cal 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 medi-cally unfit to continue as drivers in service of the Haryana Roadways. That communication does not speak of giving any employ-ment to any of the dependents 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 weak and because of that they have been retired from the service of the Haryana Roadways.
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 (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.(Para 5, 6 & 7)
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Harya-na for setting aside the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant-State to appoint the sons of writ petitioner Re-spondents on suitable jobs commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed by them. The respondents in the two appeals were employed as drivers in the Haryana Roadways. In the course of time they were declared medically unfit for driving heavy vehicles by the District Medical Officer because of the defect in their eye-sight. On the basis of the medical report, the respondents were retired from the service of the Haryana Roadways.
3. They filed writ petitions before the High court for a direc-tion that, on being declared medically unfit for the post of the Drivers and having been retired from service one of their sons should be given employment. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions and has directed to give employment to one of their sons. On behalf of the State, it was pointed out that the Trans-port Commissioner of the State of Haryana had issued a communica-tion dated 20.8.1992 in respect of the procedure to be followed in case of removal of Drivers on account of their being medically unfit to drive heavy vehicles. In the said communication the aforesaid question has been considered in depth by the State Government in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Bihari and Others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Another, JT 1990 (4) SC 794 = 1991 (1) SCC 731. A decision has been taken that if a Driver becomes unfit due to disease not related to his employment, he should be retired from service on medical grounds by following the procedure prescribed therein. On the other hand, if the incapaci-ty is related to the occupational hazards, then first an effort should be made to find an alternative employment which may not necessarily be in the same scale of pay as the one he was hold-ing earlier. But it should be ensured that such Driver is capable of performing that job. In that event, such employee who is given alternative employment shall be deemed to have retired from his earlier employment with whatever retirement benefits admissible to him and shall draw the salary on basis of reemployment in addition to his retirement benefits, provided that the pension plus the salary on re-employment does not exceed the last pay drawn. In that very communication it has been further provided that in case no job was available and the General Manager certifies to that effect, in that event the employee shall be paid along with the retirement benefits additional compensation amount, the details whereof have been given in the said communication.
4. Yet another communication was issued on 23.11.1992 by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana in respect of in-centives to be given to the Government servants who become unfit during service by giving appointment to the dependents of such Government servants who become blind and unfit. The said communi-cation says:
“………..it has been decided to give appointment to one of dependents of the regular Government official who become blind or Nakara during service………..”
It further provides that such unfit officials will have to get a certificate of unfitness from the Special Medical Board consti-tuted by the Health Department.
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 medi-cal 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 medi-cally unfit to continue as drivers in service of the Haryana Roadways. That communication does not speak of giving any employ-ment to any of the dependents 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 weak and because of that they have been retired from the service of the Haryana Roadways.
6. 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, unequitable 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 compen-sation 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 dependents of the respond-ents be given a suitable job commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed by him.
7. 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 judg-ment of this Court in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Trans-port Corporation (supra). Only in exceptional circumstances, where it is not possible to adjust them in any alternative job, 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.
