Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURJEET SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 202 1996 SCALE (5)493
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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.
The only question is whether the instructions of the
Government dated February 22,1991 read with intructions
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
should follow due to the above factors.
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.
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.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.