JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3056 of 2012, dismissing the writ petition.

3. Challenge in the writ petition was to an order dated 30.06.2012, by which, the petitioner, who was working as driver with respondent No. 2, was compulsorily retired in public interest on the ground that the District Medical Board had found him unfit to work as a driver, in the light of a notification No. 3-24/2000/3/1, dated 22.08.2000 of the General Administration Department.

4. The petitioner was due to retire on regular superannuation on 15.12.2017 and thus, he was compulsorily retired about 5 years prior to his actual date of retirement.

5. The writ petitioner died on 13.01.2021 and thereafter, his legal heirs have been substituted.

6. A contention was advanced before the learned Single Judge, as is noticed from the impugned judgment, that the petitioner ought to be accommodated by providing him with an alternative job which he could have performed despite his disability in connection with eyesight.

7. Though the impugned order dated 30.06.2012 does not recite the kind of disability that the petitioner had, the Medical Board opined, as is demonstrated by Annexure-R-2-3 of the return of the respondent No. 2, that the petitioner had a condition called “Bilateral Operated Glaucoma with No Perception of Light in Left Eye (one eyed)”.

8. It was also contended that the petitioner ought to have been given notice of retirement well in advance and if not, should have been paid salary in lieu of the notice period. There was no public interest involved in retiring the petitioner compulsorily. As the petitioner had crossed the age of regular superannuation by the time the writ petition came to be disposed of, a contention was advanced that a direction may be issued for payment of compensation.

9. The notification dated 22.08.2000, as reflected in the order of compulsory retirement dated 30.06.2012, was not placed on record.

10. Learned Single Judge relied on Fundamental Rule 56 (2) (a), which provides that a government servant may, in public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing.

11. Taking note of the nature of the duty that the petitioner was discharging, it was observed that he should have proper vision in both the eyes and if a person with defective eyesight is allowed to drive a vehicle, he will endanger the safety of all the persons travelling in such vehicle.

12. A finding was recorded that the petitioner did not lose his eyesight on account of some employment related injury and that the nature of ailment suffered by the petitioner could not be said to be one arising from occupational hazard.

13. The decision in Anand Bihari & Others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Through its Managing Director & Another, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 731, which was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was held to be distinguishable on facts. However, there was no discussion on that aspect.

14. Mr. Johri submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. He submits that it is an occupational hazard for a driver to develop over the years, problems relating to eyesight. Only because some medical disability had arisen, it does not behove on the part of the employer to unceremoniously show the door to an employee, who is in employment for couple of decades, taking shelter under the guise of “public interest”. In the attending facts and circumstances, he submits that it is a fit case where this C