Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.78 seconds)Virender Singh Malhan vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & ... on 8 May, 2015
Reference was made to another judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case Virender Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others (CWP No.8150 of 2009) decided on 12.12.2011. In
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:43:00 :::
CWP No. 10158 of 2017 :5:
this case, the petitioner was retired from service as he was suffering with a
chronic disease Rheumatoid Arthritis. The petitioner pleaded that he should
not have been retired from service on account of his disability rather a
supernumerary post should have been created till he attained the age of
superannuation. It was observed by this Court that the intended purpose of
Section 47 of the Act is beneficial in nature and is inclined benevolently
towards the persons/employees who acquire disability during the service
and the purpose is obviously to protect their rights and ensure their
adjustment elsewhere by giving them a different assignment which will not
be in conflict with their disability. It was held that such a beneficial
legislation has to be interpreted liberally so that the flow of intended benefit
is not obstructed. The petition was allowed and the respondent was directed
to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the observations made
above and also in terms of the mandate of Section 47 of the Act.
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
Learned State counsel has referred to a judgment in the case of
Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy reported at (2004) 1 SCC
347, wherein it has been opined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the
persons who approach the Court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an
order passed in some other case earlier can be denied the discretionary relief
6 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:43:00 :::
CWP No. 10158 of 2017 :7:
on account of delay and laches.
Santoshi Sondhi @ Sonia vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 February, 2015
Further reference was made to a judgment of this Court in the
case of Santoshi Sondhi @ Sonia vs. State of Punjab and others, 2015 (3)
PLR 710, wherein the husband of petitioner acquired disability during his
service. It was held that the 1995 Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It
casts an obligation on the employer and correspondingly confers right on
the employee. Even if husband of the petitioner is retired under Rule 5.11
of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume - II , that will not stand in the
way for granting him relief as is available to him under Section 47 of the
Act as there is no estoppel against the statute. Action of the respondents
was held to be illegal. Respondents were directed to grant all benefits
available to the employee concerned in terms of Section 47 of the Act.
Hari Singh Etc vs State Of Haryana on 13 April, 1993
Since, it was not disputed that the order of termination
was passed in 2002 after coming into force of the the 1995 Act, the same
was held to be in violation of the provisions of Section 47 of the 1995 Act
and thus could not be sustained
In the case of Hari Singh vs. State of Haryana and others
(CWP No. 15488 of 2012) decided on 19.5.2015, the petitioner who was
working on the post of Conductor in Haryana Roadways Sirsa, during the
service, contracted the disease, namely, 'diffuse brain atrophy and
parkinsonism'. The respondent-authorities after obtaining the opinion from
the department of PGI, Rohtak found him to be not fit for the post of
Conductor and accordingly he was compulsorily retired from service. This
Court allowed the writ petition while observing that the state of
mind/depression a person undergoes when being contracted with such
deadly disease is tremendous and the plight of the person is undefinable
and, therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the writ petition
cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and it is statutory
right of the employee to be given a suitable post as per the provisions of
Section 47 of the Act. The respondent-authorities were directed to offer a
suitable post where the petitioner can perform his duties. The petitioner was
also held entitled to all the consequential benefits as per law.
The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 4 January, 2008
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully
going through the records of the case, in my opinion, the present writ
petition deserves to be allowed. At the outset, reference can be made to
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and another vs. Punjab
State Electricity Board 2008 (1) SCT 623. In this case, appellant no.1, who
was a class IV employee completely lost his vision. Board relieved the
employee from service from the date of issuance of Medical Certificate.
While examining the provisions of Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) At, 1995,
it was held that when an employee acquires disability during the service and
he was not aware of any protection under the Law, it was the duty of the
Superior Officers to explain to the employee the correct legal position and
to tell him about his legal rights. The action of the officers concerned was
held to be deprecatable. In paragraphs 12 & 13, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
observed as under:
Satbir Singh vs Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 25 April, 2006
Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the report of the
Medical Board contends that even though the petitioner was found to be
unfit for the service as Science Master but the certificates does not declare
that he is completely unfit for any kind of service. Reference was made to
a judgment in the case of Satbir Singh vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:43:00 :::
CWP No. 10158 of 2017 :4:
Nigam Ltd. And another 2007(1) SCT 743, wherein the petitioner was a
regular employee of the respondent-Nigam and while in the employment of
the respondents, at the time of changing the transformer, he suffered an
electric shock. The petitioner, thereafter remained under treatment till
26.11.1999 in the PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, he was declared unfit and
retired from service vide order dated 7.4.2000 as the official had been
declared incapacitated for further service of the Nigam as per Medical
Certificate. This Court held the petitioner entitled to the benefit under
Section 47 (1) of the Act. It was held that the petitioner cannot be denied
the benefit of the mandatory provisions of the Act simply on the ground that
the department cannot be allowed to be burdened with the
salary/remuneration of an incapacitated person.
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (Hvpn) & ... vs Smt. Roshni Devi on 5 July, 2012
Reference can be made to another Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (HVPN) and
others vs. Smt. Roshni Devi in LPA No.823 of 2012 decided on 5.7.2012,
wherein an appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated
6.3.2012 of the Single Judge who while denying quashing of the order of
premature retirement passed on 10.7.2002 (P-6) by the appellant against late
Vijay Sudarshan Sharma, husband of the petitioner-respondent has,
however, directed consideration of the case of petitioner's son for
compassionate appointment on the premise that the retirement was made on
account of physical unfitness. It was held by the Division Bench that the
order of premature retirement/termination cannot be legally sustained being
in violation of Section 47 of the 1995 Act.
Nirmal Rani vs Union Of India And Others on 29 July, 2008
In another judgment passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal Rani vs. Union of India and others
2008 (4) SCT 689 in which the services of Yash Pal were terminated w.e.f
13.8.1994 on a finding that for all practical purposes he had been declared
permanently incapacitated vide medical report dated 5.8.1994 and declared
unfit for service. The termination order was passed on 11.6.2002 with
retrospective effect from 13.8.1994. The claim for terminal benefits and for
compassionate appointment was turned down by the employer and the
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:43:00 :::
CWP No. 10158 of 2017 :11:
Tribunal in the original application brought for redressal of the grievance.
The issue before the Court was whether in the face of Section 47 of the
1995 Act, the services of an employee acquiring disability during service
could be terminated.