Back
2008(1) Supreme 75
Supreme Court of india
G.P.Mathur & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Bhagwan Dass & Anr. — Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 8 of 2008
Decided on 04-01-2008
[2003 (4) SCC 524] relied upon.
Facts of the case:-
1.Appellant an Assistant Lineman in Punjab State Electricity Board while in service became totally blind. Protection of section 47 was denied by officer of Punjab State Electricity Board to appellant1 on ground that he himself by a letter requested to retire from service. Said action of respondents officers has been challenged in present appeal.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that Appellant No.1 a Class IV employee, a Lineman completely lost his vision. Appellant No.1 was not aware of any protection that law afforded him and apparently believed that blindness would cause him to lose his job, source of livelihood of his family. In those circumstances it was duty of superior officers to explain to him correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Instead of doing that respondents threw appellant1 out of service by picking up a sentence from his letter, completely out of context. Action of concerned officers of Board, was deprecatable. Officers were duty bound to follow law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat lawful rights of disabled employee. Notwithstanding clear and definite legislative mandate officers of Board took view that it was not right to continue a blind, useless man on Boards rolls and to pay him monthly salary in return of no service. Respondents accordingly persuaded each other that appellant had himself asked for retirement from service and, hence he was not entitled to protection of Act. Only material on basis of which officers of Board took stand that appellant had himself made a request for retirement on medical grounds was his letter. Letter was written by appellant when a charge sheet was issued to him and in letter he was trying to explain his absence from duty. In this letter he requested to be retired but at the same time asked that his wife should be given a suitable job in his place. Held impossible to read that letter as a voluntary offer for retirement. Action of Board in terminating service of Appellant No.1 held to be bad and illegal. Appellant held entitled to continue in service till his date of superannuation. Appeal allowed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
judgment
Aftab Alam, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harboured by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of the case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of appellant No.1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous.
3.The facts of the case are brief and are all taken from the (Reply) Affidavit filed on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers (the respondents in the appeal). Appellant No.1 joined the respondent Board on July 19, 1977, on ad-hoc/work-charged basis. His services were regularized as an Assistant Lineman on June 16, 1981. While in service he became totally blind on January 17, 1994 and a certificate to that effect was issued by the civil surgeon, Faridkot.
4.Here, it may be noted that the rights of an employee who acquires a disability during his service are protected and safeguarded by Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 47 reads as follows :
“47.Non-discrimination in Government employments (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits :
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2).No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”
It may further be noted that the import of Section 47 of the Act was considered by this court in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. [2003 (4) SCC 524] and in paragraph 9 of the decision it was observed and held as follows :
“Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of ‘disability’ and ‘person with disability’. It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of the section reads ‘no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service’. The section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is ea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
