Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Services on 18-1-2006, vide order dated 19.01.2006 was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II and posted as IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh. In the intervening night of 27/28-3-2010, the petitioner has suffered hypoxic brain damage due to shortage of oxygen supply to her brain during the cardiac arrest and since then she has become unconscious. This court directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for physical examination. Thereafter, she was served with an invalidation order issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh and her services were invalidated under Rule 18(2)

5. The State has filed their return mainly contending that the services of the petitioner have been invalidated in terms of Rules 18(2)(a) of the Rules 2010 vide order dated 30-8-2016 in view of the resolution passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur and on the basis of medical report submitted by the Medical Board suggesting that the petitioner cannot be cured completely and that she is unfit on account of hypoxic brain damage and in all likelihood she cannot function as a Judicial Officer in future.

employment shall be entitled during such leave to leave salary as admissible under this rule, reduced by the amount of pension and pension equivalent of other retirement benefts.

13. From the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has been incapacitated because of hypoxic brain damage and she is unable to discharge the judicial work. Considering this aspect of the matter and after obtaining medical report the High Court has recommended the Government to invalidate the petitioner on 30-07-2016. This is not the disputed fact between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, this Court has to examine whether the petitioner can be given any protection in view of PWD Act 1995 or RPWD Act, 2016. From bare perusal of Sections 2(i), 2(s), 2(t) of Act, 1995 and Section 47 of the Act provides non- discrimination in government employment. The section provides that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank an employee who acquire a disability during his service and the disability has been defned in Section 2(i) of the Act, which means blindness, low vision, leprosy- cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation & mental illness. These disabilities have been further defned in Section 2(n), 2(o), 2(q) & 2(r) of the Act of 1995. From perusal of the disabilities, it is quite vivid that the petitioner's disabilities Hypoxic Brain Damage does not fall within the any of the categories defned in the Act of 1995.

19. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is found devoid of, merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs".

21. In view of the above factual and legal matrix, particularly the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) and also considering the disability sustained by the petitioner which does not enumerate as defned in the PWD Act, 1995 and PRWD Act, 2016 also, this cannot be inserted by this court and condition (Hypoxic Brain Damage) of the petitioner is neither a specifed disability nor is the same relatable to the broad spectrum of impairments, which hinders his full and efective participation in society. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that condition (Hypoxic Brain Damage ) of the petitioner does not bring his case within the ambit of either the PWD Act 1995 or RPWD Act 2016, therefore, the question No. 1 posed by this Court is decided that the petitioner is not entitled to get protection of the Act, 1995 & the Act, 2016.