State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Surjeet Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.9509 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6067/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29-08-1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6067/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29-08-1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995)
Petitioner: State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent: Surjeet Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.9509 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6067/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29-08-1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6067/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29-08-1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 09, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Uma Datta, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Appointment on Compassionate Grounds
Appointment on compassionate grounds – Govt. instructions dated 22.2.1991 and 28.8.1992 – Respondent, a driver of heavy vehicles, was compulsorily retired due to disability in sight which was a pre-condition for driving heavy vehicle – Respondent sought appointment of his son on compassionate grounds – Respondent was found to be neither blind nor nakara on the date of compulsory retirement – Held that the disability in sight would not mean that he was totally blind or invalid and that the same would not entitle his son to get appointment on compassionate grounds – Since in view of the directions of the High Court his son had been given the appointment, the Court declined to interfere with the same while holding the view of the High Court to be legally incorrect.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The respondent-Surjeet Singh was a driver of a heavy vehicle. He was appointed on December 24, 1986. The Medical Board on his examination by proceedings dated September 3, 1993 found that he was suffering from Melineal Inter Cr. fractum resue/lant by 5.2 un-c. Consequently, the Medical Board opined that he could not perform the duties of a heavy vehicle driver due to the above disability. Pursuant thereto, he was retired from service. He made an application for appointment of his son as a clerk on compassionate grounds on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government. The Government on consideration of his representation found that the respondent was neither blind nor nakara (totally invalid) on the date of his retirement and that, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds as a clerk. Feeling aggrieved, he filed C.W.P. No.4088/95 in the High Court. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by order dated August 29, 1995 held that the declaration of unfitness on medical grounds, in other words, his invalidity in the service, attracts the instructions issued by the Government dated August 28, 1992 and consequently he is entitled to have his son appointed on compassionate grounds. Calling that order in question, this appeal has been filed by special leave.
4. The only question is whether the instructions of the Government dated February 22, 1991 read with instructions dated August 28, 1992 enable an employee having become blind or nakara during service and compulsory retired from service on account thereof, to be entitled for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. It is seen that the instructions do clearly indicate that an employee who was compulsory retired from service should suffer from blindness or nakara while in service and the compulsory retirement should follow due to the above factors.
5. In this case, it is seen that he was neither blind nor nakara on the date of the compulsory retirement. The doctors found him that he was having deficiency in sight. Consequently, he could not drive the heavy vehicle. It would not mean that he was totally blind. Due to disability in sight, which is a pre-condition for safe driving of a heavy vehicle, he was retired from service and it would not mean that he was totally invalid or blind. But we are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the son of the respondent has been appointed and he is in service.
6. Under these circumstances, though we find that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law, we decline to interfere with the order. However, the order of the High Court is not to be taken to be approved by this Court. On the other hand, we specifically hold that the view of the High Court is not correct in law. However, we decline to interfere with the subsequent order passed by the appellant-State pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The respondent-Surjeet Singh was a driver of a heavy vehicle. He was appointed on December 24, 1986. The Medical Board on his examination by proceedings dated September 3, 1993 found that he was suffering from Melineal Inter Cr. fractum resue/lant by 5.2 un-c. Consequently, the Medical Board opined that he could not perform the duties of a heavy vehicle driver due to the above disability. Pursuant thereto, he was retired from service. He made an application for appointment of his son as a clerk on compassionate grounds on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government. The Government on consideration of his representation found that the respondent was neither blind nor nakara (totally invalid) on the date of his retirement and that, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds as a clerk. Feeling aggrieved, he filed C.W.P. No.4088/95 in the High Court. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by order dated August 29, 1995 held that the declaration of unfitness on medical grounds, in other words, his invalidity in the service, attracts the instructions issued by the Government dated August 28, 1992 and consequently he is entitled to have his son appointed on compassionate grounds. Calling that order in question, this appeal has been filed by special leave.
4. The only question is whether the instructions of the Government dated February 22, 1991 read with instructions dated August 28, 1992 enable an employee having become blind or nakara during service and compulsory retired from service on account thereof, to be entitled for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. It is seen that the instructions do clearly indicate that an employee who was compulsory retired from service should suffer from blindness or nakara while in service and the compulsory retirement should follow due to the above factors.
5. In this case, it is seen that he was neither blind nor nakara on the date of the compulsory retirement. The doctors found him that he was having deficiency in sight. Consequently, he could not drive the heavy vehicle. It would not mean that he was totally blind. Due to disability in sight, which is a pre-condition for safe driving of a heavy vehicle, he was retired from service and it would not mean that he was totally invalid or blind. But we are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the son of the respondent has been appointed and he is in service.
6. Under these circumstances, though we find that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law, we decline to interfere with the order. However, the order of the High Court is not to be taken to be approved by this Court. On the other hand, we specifically hold that the view of the High Court is not correct in law. However, we decline to interfere with the subsequent order passed by the appellant-State pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
