D.N. Patel, A.C.J.

1. When the matter is called out, the appellant in person has remained present and he has argued his case as party in person. He has come to this court in a wheelchair, as he is unable to walk.

2. The lawyers are on strike, hence, the counsel for Union of India, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, has not remained present.

3. We have sent our Court jamadar to call Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, but, he has not come, therefore, we are proceeding ahead for final hearing of this matter.

4. Today, this matter is listed for final hearing. This matter was also not taken up for final hearing on yesterday. Yesterday also nobody was present when the matter was called out and with a view to give one more chance to the parties to the litigation, the matter was adjourned for today.

5. As the counsel for the respondents is absent, we have heard the party in person appellant at length and we have also kept the matter after the recess to give one more opportunity to the counsel for the respondents.

6. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondents after recess.

7. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th November, 2008, in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1248 of 2005, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed.

8. The brief facts of the case :

• The present appellant (original petitioner) was serving as a constable in Border Security Force. He joined the services in the year 1987.

• Thereafter, he was deployed in Jammu & Kashmir.

• During militant action, while he was deployed in Jammu & Kashmir, he sustained injuries by bullet and bomb on 10th September, 1992.

• This appellant (original petitioner) has worked from 1992 till 1999 on the post of constable, but, the nature of work, which was assigned to him, was different. He was assigned the work of typist. Thus, this appellant continued from 1992 to 1999 as a constable and he was performing his duties of typist.

• The Medical Board was constituted and he was declared unfit on 11th June, 1999 on the ground that there is 100 per cent disability with this appellant.

• The nature of the disability is a locomotive disability. He is unable to walk, but, the upper limb of the body and thorax is perfect and is working absolutely perfectly and appears to be normal and functioning perfectly. He is able to see perfectly, he can hear also perfectly and his both hands are working perfectly as there is no injury on the upper limb of the body and thorax, and therefore, the nature of the work, which was assigned after the accident/incident, was changed and from the outfield duties as a constable, this appellant was assigned duties at the office of Border Security Force as a Constable Typist.

• There is no complaint by the respondents that he was inefficient during 1992 to 1999. There is no allegation of any misconduct against this appellant during this period. He performed his duties honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents and has not received any adverse remarks. No show cause has ever been given to this appellant about his poor performance in discharging his duties as constable typist during the period from 1992 to 1999.

• Upon receipt of the Medical Board's report, in the year 1999, the services of this appellant was terminated and he was compulsorily retired from the service with effect from 17.2.2000.

• This appellant had challenged his termination of service's order dated 17.2.2000 in the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3058 of 2000 mainly on the basis of the protection given under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act, 1995 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1995).

• The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2002 and the matter was remitted to the respon