The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to protection and alternative employment for individuals acquiring disability during service, as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned writ Court whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner came to be allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service and the amount of terminal benefits received by him was ordered to be adjusted against the amount of his salary from 11.03.1998 onwards.

The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus.

2. The respondent is the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner) was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'CRPF’) as a constable driver on 31.07.1985. At the time of enrollment, he was physically examined and found fit. In 1996, the writ petitioner suffered some problem in his eye and was medically examined at Government Medical College and Hospital, Jammu, where he was found suffering from Disseminated Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patihics Macular involvement left eye. His visual acuity was 6/12 in right and 6/60 in left eye with no improvement with glasses i.e. he was found blind by left eye and partially blind in right eye. The Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) Station Hospital, GC, CRPF, Jammu, recommended his case to be put up before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board. The writ petitioner was declared unfit for driving as well as combatant duties and referred to Medical Invalidation Board on 17.01.1997 as per circulation order 28/29. The Medical Board constituted by Base Hospital-II, CRPF, Hyderabad, examined the writ petitioner on 10.04.1997 and found him to be permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the department. On the basis of such recommendations, a notice dated 12.02.1998 was served upon the writ petitioner by the respondent No.4 asking him to submit representation against the order of his medical invalidation. On 26.02.1998, the writ petitioner submitted application to the respondent No.4 wherein he sought full 100% financial benefits from the department on his invalidation from service. Vide order dated 11.03.1998, the writ petitioner was invalidated from service with effect from 11.03.1998. The writ petitioner on 15.10.2000 made a representation to the respondents which was rejected in December, 2000.

3. The writ petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing CWP No.206/2003 which came up for consideration before this Court on 05.01.2005 and the following orders came to be passed:-

“When this case was taken up today, it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that after receipt of legal notice on behalf of the petitioner from his counsel Shri Sanjay Kalia, Advocate, Dharamshala, no decision had been taken on it till the date of swearing of affidavit, i.e. 12th July, 2004. Shri Baldev Singh, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel, was not in a position to inform the Court whether any reply to this notice has been sent and/or whether the petitioner was found entitled to any relief in accordance with relevant rules and regulations.

In this view of the matter and without having gone into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take decision on the legal notice admittedly received by them. Decision will be taken by or before 15th February, 2005, and shall then be conveyed to the petitioner. In case petitioner is found entitled to any relief in accordance with law, needful will be done by the respondents by or before 31st March, 2005. In case legal notice has already been examined and decision taken on it before today, in such a situation, respondents are directed to forthwith convey such decision to the petitioner. If he (the petitioner) feels dissatisfied with the same, he will be entitled to have such recourse as available to him in law and in that event, this order will not come in his way.

Writ petition is finally disposed of in these terms.”

4. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court on 31.03.2005, the respondents vide order dated 27.06.2005 again rejected the ca