The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Workmens Compensation Act, an individual may not be entitled to compensation for partial disablement if they continue to receive the same pay and remain in service, indicating no loss of earning capacity.

( 1 ) APPELLANT was a driver of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. He met with an accident on 16. 12. 1978 and received injuries. Due to the injuries, his one leg was amputated. Therefore, he claimed compensation before Workmens compensation Commissioner, Moradabad under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner has rejected the request for awarding compensation by impugned judgment dated 18. 2. 1982 for the reason that the appellant is still in service and is getting the same pay and, therefore, there is no loss of earning capacity. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. V. K. Nagaich, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are not denied. Due to the accident, the appellant received injuries and ultimately his one leg was amputated. However, he remained in service of the respondent thereafter and was getting the same pay.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has referred to the provisions of section 2 (1) (g), which reads as follows:" partial disablement means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and, where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement, as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time; provided that every injury specified in Part II of schedule I shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. "

( 5 ) IT is contended that in view of the above there was partial disablement of the appellant which is of permanent nature that in accordance with the provisions of section 4 (1) (c) (ii) the appellant is entitled to compensation for partial disablement. The said provision reads as follows:"in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. "

( 6 ) ACCORDING to this provision, the workman is entitled to compensation proportionate to the loss of earning capacity.

( 7 ) IN the present case, the appellant was getting the same salary and continued in service. Therefore, there was no loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the claim was rightly rejected by the Compensation Commissioner.

( 8 ) IT is contended that the appellant has been removed from service on 23. 2. 1987. However, it is admitted that he has been removed from the service for poor eyesight. There is nothing to show that his poor eyesight is related to the accident. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to any compensation. The claim was rightly rejected. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

( 9 ) THE appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The stay order, if any, is hereby vacated. Appeal dismissed.

.