-

A  

B  

SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR  v.  

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  

JANUARY 21, 1994  

[P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]  

Constitution of India : Articles 21 and 3r-compensation-Death of  Anny Officer in mysterious circumstances-Finding of enquiry that death not  attributable to military service, but reporl withheld from petitioner-wife as being  

C highly confidential-Claim for Syc.cial Family Pension and Children Al- lowance rejected by authorities as petitioner could not make out that death  was on account of or during, military service-Held, the officer died while in  service, in mysterious circumstances-His death attributable to, and ag- gravated by, military service-Petitioner, entitled to Special Family Pension  

D and Children Allowance-Rs.6 lakhs to be paid as compensation-Casual  .manner of preparing affidavit criticised-Investigation to be made at the  highest level-Chief of Anny Staff to look into the matter.  

The petitioner's husband, a Major in the Army died in mysterious  circumstances. The petitioner-wife was given a post- mortem report which  

E attributed the death to extensive burns.  

After over 7 years, and several letters, she was informed that the  enquiry held bad found that the death of her husband was not attributable  to military service. Her claim for Special Family Pension and Children  Allowance was rejected in July 1985 with the intimation that she could  

F appeal within 6 months if she was dissatisfied with the order. She was  refused a copy of the enquiry report as being a highly confidential docu- ment.  

The petitioner-wife approached this Court claiming Special Family  G Pension and Children Allowance. She also claimed damages of Rs.7,50,000.  

The authorities inter alia contended that they had not denied the  pension and allowance to the petitioner but that she had failed to file a  review with them. They also admitted that the Court of Inquiry could not  conclusively prove whether the officer's death was one of murder or of  

H suicide.  200

CHARANJIT KAUR v. U.0.I. 201  

Allowing the petition, this Court A  

HELD : 1. The conduct of the authorities has, right from the incep- tion, been utterly irresponsible. There is a good deal of substance in the  allegation that the death of the petitioner's husband was in mysterious  circumstances. Further, no enquiry whatsoever seems to have been made  and if made, its results were kept a secret. That such an incident should B  have occurred in the presence of the responsible Army officers and should  

go uninvestigated and in fact completely ignored is all the more barning.  There is a good deal in this case for which the authorities have to answer.  This is apart from the fact that till this day, the case bas been handled  with culpable negligence and cynical indifference. This is a matter which C  requires investigation at the highest level. The matter should be personally  looked into by the Chief of the Army Staff. (208-C-F]  

2. lo the facts of the case, the conclusion is inescapable that the  officer died while in service in mysterious circumstances and his death is  attributable and aggravated by the military service. The responsibility of D  his death is prima f acie traceable to the act of criminal omissions and  commissions on the part of the concerned authorties. (208-G]  

3. The petitioner is entitled to the Special Family Pension and  Children Allowance, according to the relevant Rules, w.e.f. 23 June 1978, E  that is the date of the death of her husband with interest at 12% p.a.  

(208-G)  

Compensation quantified at Rs.6,00,000 is granted. (208-H]  

4. The affidavit of the authorities has been prepared in the most F  casual manner as is apparent even from the kind of language and the  

grammatical as well as factual mistakes which have been committed in it,  and is replete with unspecific and omnibus statements. [206-H, 207-A]  

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 45 of 1989. G  

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)  

M.C. Dhingra for the Petitioner.  

V.V. Vaze, AS. Bhasme and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. H

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R.  

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

SAWANT, J. 1. This case is a glaring example of gross negligence  and callousness on the part of the authorities and the consequent in-

describable mental torment and physical and financial hardship caused to  

B the widow and two minor children of an Army officer. The apathy and the  extremely casual attitude adopted by the concerned officers travelled even  

to the proceedings in this Court and are writ large on the affidavit-in- reply  which they have filed in response to the petition.  

C 2. The petitioner's husband, Mukhbain Singh was commissioned as a  Lieutenant in the Indian Army on or about 13.10.1963 according to the  

petitioner and on 1.6.1968 according to the respondent-authorities, and was  

promoted to the rank of Major on 24.5.1978. On promotion, he was posted  

at Kargil on 10.6.1978. According to the petitioner, he complained of chest  D pain on 12.6.1978 and was removed to Leh on 16.6.1978. The diagnosis  

made was of Ischaemic heart disease. The petitioner who was married to  Mukhbain Singh in 1971 was living in Meerut at the relevant time with her  

two children - a daughter born in 1972 and a son born in 1975. On receiving  

information of the illness of her husband, she rushed with her children to  

E Leh on 16.6.1978. After a great deal of persuasion, the petitioner and her  children were allowed to meet Mukhbain Singh who was then lying in a  

make-shift hospital which was devoid of life saving treatment at the relevant  

time. She found her husband in a precarious condition. He was unable to  move on his own. Both the petitioner and her husband requested the  authorities to air-lift him to Ambala or Srinagar Military Hospital for  

F proper treatment. This request was turned down. Upon this the petitioner  and her husband requested the authorities to discharge him so that he  might move to Srinagar at his own risk. That request was also not acceded  

to. On the other hand, he was threatened with Court Martial. After a great  deal of persuasion and pleading, on 19.6.1978 one Dr. Major Boffalo  

G agreed to shift Mukhbain Singh from Leh to Ambala and told the  petitioner that her husband would be airlifted to Ambala on 21.6.1978. The  petitioner a.µd her husband pleaded with the authorities that she and her  

children be allowed to accompany him but that request was also not  acceded to. She was asked to move with her children independently from  

H Leh, and reach Ambala to receive her husband there.

CHARANnTKAUR v. U.O.I. [SAWANT, J.] 203  

3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the assurance given by the A  authorities and insisted that she would stay on till her husband was actually  

airlifted on 21.6.1978. On 21.6.1978, Mukhbain Singh was not airlifted. On  

enquiry, it was revealed that the Commanding Officer had not passed the  

necessary orders for his evacuation to Ambala Army Hospital. However,  

the authorities persuaded the petitioner to move to Ambala with an as- B  surance that her husband would be airlifted to that place on 23.6.1978.  

Hence, on 22.6.1978 the petitioner with her children reached Srinagar and  

from there, reached Udhampur on 23.6.1978. On that day at the Udhampur  

check post, she was informed that her husband was not "well" and she  

should return to Leh. The petitioner rushed back to Leh the next day, i.e., C  on 24.6.1978. There she was to receive a rude shock when she was shown  

the burnt body of her husband. The authorities did not disclose to her the  

circumstances under which her husband had received the burns. Later on,  

she was only given a report of the postmortem examination conducted by  

the Army Medical Authorities at Leh which attributed the death to "exten-

sive burns". D  

4. ~ccording to the authorities, after Mukhbain Singh complained of  chest pain at Kargil he was evacuated to Leh on 16.6.1978. He was advised  transfer to Ambala on 22 Jan 1978. The transfer according to the  authorities, "was not an emergency one". It is also the case of the authorities E  that it is Mukhbain Singh who did not board the plane on 23.6.1978.  According to them, on that day he had gone to attend to some private  business in the cook house and later his charred body was found with 98  per cent burns due to kerosene oil leading to irreversible shock. This was  at 0803 hours on that day.  

5. According to the petitioner, her husband's death took place in  mysterious circumstances, particularly because when she saw her husband,  

F  

he was unable to move around. It was, therefore, ununderstandable as to  how he could, on his own, move around to receive the said burns. He was G  in fact brought to the air-base at Leh from the Army Hospital in the  custody of the Army specialists according to the authorities, and was  supposed to be in their custody till he was to board the plane. Hence she  protested to the authorities at Leh, upon which she was told that the matter  would be investigated and it is only after the investigation that she would  be informed about the circumstances leading to her husband's death: H

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 1994] 1 S.C.R.  

A Thereafter, she wrote several letters to the authorities for communicating  to her the result of the enquiry; but only a few of the letters were answered  intimating her that she would be informed in the matter when the report  would become available. After more than seven years, the finding of the  enquiry was that the death of her husband was not attributable to military  

B  service. She applied for a copy of the enquiry report so that she could  challenge the same in appeal and claim Special Family Pension and  Children Allowance. The authorities, however, refused to give her a copy  

1 of the report stating that it was a highly confidential document.  

6. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Article  C 32 of the Constitution claiming both Special Family Pension and Children  

Allowance as well as damages of ij.s.7,50,000.  

7. According to the authorities, the case for granting Special Family  Pension to the petitioner was initiated on 14.7.1978 but due to incomplete  

D documents, a final decision could be taken only in July 1985. The petitioner  was informed of the decision of the Government rejecting her case for the  grant of the Special Family Pension vide letter dated 15th July, 1985 with  the intimation that she could appeal against the decision within a period  of six months in case she was dissatisfied with the same. According to the  authorities, the petitioner did not appeal and preferred to go to the Court.  

E  8. The respondent-authorities have further stated that the reasons  

which led to the death of Mukhbain Singh could not be disclosed to her,  the same being confidential in naturt!. It is not disputed that her success in  the appeal was dependent upon the case she had to make out, viz., that  

F her husband had died on account of or during military service. For this the  enquiry report was very much necessary. Instead, in paragraph 8 of their  affidavit-in-reply, they have stated that "the special family pension and  children allowance has not b'!en denied to the petitioner. She did not  appeal to the Government for a review of their decision in this regard".  TJie case made out in the said paragraph is, therefore, that since she had  

G not appealed to the Government for a review of their decision, it should  be held that she had not been denied the pension and the allowance. It  appears that the authorities do not recognise any limit to perversity in  reasoning. However, immediately in paragraph 9 thereafter, they contradict  themselves and state that "It is humbly submitted that all families of Army  

H officers are not granted special family pension. Special family pension is

CHARANJITKAUR v. U.0.1. [SAWANT, J.] 205  

granted only when death is considered attributable to or aggravated by him A  military service as defined under Govt. of India letter No.1(1)/81/Pen-C  dated 22 March 1983". The statement in paragraph 8 of the affidavit can,  therefore, only be termed as adding insult to the· injury. It is then the case  of the respondent-authorities that they had set up a Court of Inquiry on  14.7.1978. The recommendations of the GOC- in-C were recorded on B  25.7.1978 with a s~ggestion that the case be handed over for investigation  by CBI to probe the "alleged/suspected murder" of the officer. The civil  investigation was carried out by the District Police, Leh in December 1984  at the behest of 1051 FD Wksp (GREF). They regretted their inability to  carry out the detailed investigation at that late stage, due to the following  reasons: C  

"(a) No factual evidence available in the ground.  

(b) Witnesses are not available.  

( c) No ground study can be made out.  

( d) Officers/staff services of your HQ at that time has either  proceeded in parts or relieved.  

D  

( e) At this stage, it is not possible to trace out any circumstantial E  evidence if any and thereby obtain the expert views. The  Government of India is not study (sic) bound to disclose its  findings specially if they are confidential in nature".  

9. In reply to the averments of the petitioner in her petition that her  husband was not airlifted on 21.6.1978 because the Commanding Officer F  had not passed the necessary orders for his evacuation to Ambala military  hospital, till that day the respondent-authorities in paragraph 13 of their  affidavit state that "as the transfer was concurred by OC MH Ambala on  22 January 1978, the officer was sent to the airfield on 23 January 1978.  The transfer was not an emergency transfer but a routine one for detailed  investigations and further management at MH Ambala. It is submitted that G  the decision regarding opportune time for transfer of patient with refer- ence to his medical condition is part of the medical management and is the  prerogative of the treating specialist. Some delay in evacuation resulted  from unwillingness of the officer. The officer was under care of a medical  specialist w.e.f. 16 January 1978 onwards". H

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994J 1 S.C.R.  

A 10. It is then stated in paragraph 14 of their affidavit that "the transfer  

B  

of the officer to MH Ambala for detailed investigation and further manage- ment was concurred in by officer commanding MH/Ambala on 22 January  1978 and the officer was sent to the airfield on 23 January 1978. The officer  did not board the plane. He had gone to auend some private business in the  cook house and later his charred body was found with 98% bums in the  serious as contended by the plaint. As such there was no cause for apprehen- sion". In reply to the petitioner's grievance that she and her children were  not permitted to accompany her husband, it is stated that "travel of NOK  in the service aircraft evacuating a patient is not permitted under the Army  rules". According to the respondent-authorities, further, the final report  

C from the Civil District Police was received in December 1984 and the  Ministry of Defence which is the competent authority in deciding at- tributability aspect for grant of special Family Pension rejected the case on  the basis of inconclusive evidence to show whether the death was "suicide  murder". 'The petitioner was informed of the authorities' decision by their  

D letter of 15 July 1985 to appeal against their decision. The respondent- authorities have admitted that the petitioner had sought the Court of  lnquiry report vide her letter dated 1 February 1986 as also the medical  record which was refused by them by their letter of 24 June 1986 on the  ground that the documents were confidential. The respondent-authorities  have also admitted that the Court of Inquiry could not conclusively prove  

E whether the officer's death was one of murder or of suicide. According to  them, every effort was made to ascertain the facts, but final conclusion  could not be arrived at. In the end, the respondent-authorities claim that  in the circumstances, the writ petition be dismissed.  

F 11. In the first instance, this affidavit-in-reply has been filed by one  

G  

Smt. Lina Mukherjee who is working as "DAAG/PS-4 in the office of the  Army Headquarters, Sena Bhavan" as has been stated in the affidavit. She  has stated that she is conversant with the facts of the case. It is not known  nor is it stated there, as to how she had become conversant with the facts  of the case so as to swear the affidavit. The fact that affidavit had been  prepared for anybody to come and swear it is apparent firstly from the fact  that blanks were left in the typed affidavit for the name and designation of  the deponent and they were later filled in in hand. Secondly, although the  deponent is a lady [We presume to be so from her name], paragraph 4 of  the affidavit begins with the words "the respondent humbly submits that he  

H may be allowed to submit... ... ". The affidavit is also prepared in the most

. ,.  

CHARANJITKAUR v. U.0.1. (SAWANT, J.] 207  

casual manner as is apparent even from the kind of language and the A  grammatical as well as factual mistakes which have been committed in it.  Although the petitioner has specifically stated in the petition that her  husband became unwell on 12.6.1978, all that the deponent has stated in  the affidavit in reply is that Major Mukhbain Singh went on temporary duty  to Kargil on 10 June 1978; he complained of chest pain and was evacuated B  to Leh on 16 June 1978. No date on which he complained of chest pain is  mentioned, and the statement of the petitioner that her husband fell ill on  12 June 1978, is not controverted. If the illness was of chest pain and it was  suffered on 12 June 1978, it is not known why he was moved to the hospital  at Leh only on 16 June 1978. There is further no denial of the petitioner's  averment in the petition that on hearing of the illness of her husband, she C  had rushed with her children from Meerut to Leh on 16 June 1978 and it  was only after great deal of persuasion that she and her children were  allowed to meet her husband. There is also no denial of the petitioner's  averment that the hospital was a make-shift one devoid of life saving  treatment. There is also no denial of the following averments, viz., that (a) D  the officer was in a precarious condition and unable to move on his own;  (b) both the petitioner and her husband had requested the authorities to  airlift him to Ambala or Srinagar Military Hospital for proper treatment  which request was declined; (c) th.ereafter the petitioner and her husband  had requested the authorities to discharge him so that he might move to  Srinagar at his own risk which request was also declined; ( d) in fact the E  officer was threatened with Court Martial; ( e) it was only after a great deal  of persuasion and pleading that Dr. Major Boffalo on 19 June 1978 agreed  for shifting him from Leh to Ambala and the petitioner was told that her  husband would be airlifted on 21 June 1978; (f) the officer was not airlifted  on 21 June 1978 because till that day the Commanding Officer had not F  passed order for liis evacuation to Ambala; (g) the petitioner was assured  that the officer would be airlifted on 23 June 1978 and it was only at  Udhampur on 23 June 1978 that she was asked to return to Leh as her  husband was not well; (h) the authorities did not disclose to her any reason  as to how and why the body of her husband was partially burnt when she  reached Leh on 24 June 1978. An omnibus statement in the affidavit-in- G  reply like "any submission made herein inconsistent with the facts of the  case and not specifically admitted is hereby denied" only rubs salt into the  wound.  

12. The manner in which the authorities have dealt with the episode H

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R.  

A of the alleged burning is all the more reprehensible. All that is stated in  the affidavit-in-reply is that when the officer was sent to the airfield on 23  January 1978, "the officer did not board the plane. He had gone to attend  some private business in the cook house and later his charred body was  found with 98% in the serious as contended by the plaint (sic). As such  

B  there was no cause for apprehension".  

13. We are pained at the utterly irresponsible conduct of the  authorities in the present case right from the inception. We see a good deal  of substance in the allegation of the petitioner that her husband met with  his death in mysterious circumstances. It is surprising that when the officer  

C was not in a condition to move on account of his ailment, and when on  16.6.1978 his condition was considered so delicate that even his wife and  children were permitted to see him only after a great deal of persuasion,  and when he was all the while accompanied by the specialist doctor, he  was allowed to move on his own and go for his private business to the cook  

D house, if the version of the respondent-authorities is to be believed. It is  also difficult to believe that when he was being airlifted at hi_s own request,  he had refused to board the plane and instead had left for his said alleged  private business. All that thereafter was found was his charred body with  98% bums. No enquiry whatsoever seems to have been made and if made,  its results are kept a secret. That such an incident should have occurred in  

E the presence of the responsible Army officers and should go uninvestigated  and in fact completely ignored is all the more baffling. There is a good deal  in this case for w~ch the authorities have to answer. This is apart from the  fact that till this day, the case has been handled with culpable negligence  and cynical indifference. This is a matter which requires investigation at  

F the highest level. We, therefore, desire that this matter be personally  looked into by the Chief cf the Army Staff.  

14. In the aforesaid facts, the conclusion is, therefore, inescapable  that the officer died while in service in mysterious circumstances and his  death is attributable to and aggravated by the military service. The respon-

G sitility of his death is prima f acie traceable to the act of criminal omissions  and commissions on the part of the concerned authorities. The petitioner  is, therefore, entitled to suitable compensation as well as to the Special  Family Pension and the C~ildren Allowance according to the relevant  Rules. w.e.f. 23.6.1978, i.e., the date of the death of her husband. We award  

H her compensation in the amount of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees six Lakhs) and  

..  

'

CHARANJIT KAUR v. U.0.1. [SAW ANT, J.] 209  

dire~ that the said amount be paid to her within six weeks from today. We A  further direct that the arrears of the Special Family Pension and the  Children Allowance be paid to her within eight weeks from today with  interest at 12% per annum. Rule issued is made absolute accordingly. The  1st respondent will pay the costs of the writ petition which are fixed at  Rs.6,000.  

U.R. Petition allowed.  

I

NARENDRA KUMAR CHANDLA  v.  

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.  

FEBRUARY 4, 1994  

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)  

SeJVice Law: Employee holding a technical post--Afflicted with certain  disease-Amputation of right hand-Reasonably prevented from peif orming  duties in the technical job--Employer offering altemative post with lesser pays- cale-Validity of  

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Right to life includes right to  livelihood.  

The appellant was working as Sub-Station Assistant with the  Respondent Electricity Board in the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2300. Due to  cancer his right arm was completely amputated. He could work only with  his left arm. The Respondents absorbed him as Carrier Attendant, which  carried a lesser pay scale. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court  by filing a Writ Petition. The High Court having dismissed the Writ  Petition, appellant preferred the present ~ppeal.  

This Court directed the Respondents to constitute a Board of three  doctors and an Executive Engineer to find out whether the appellant could  discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post  in the same pay scale. The Board reported that the appellant failed to  perform his duties as Sub- Station Attendent or equivalent technical posts.  The Board also recommended that the appellant could be considered for  clerical or non-technical post subject to his meeting education), ad·  ministrative requirements of the Electricity Board.  

Allowing the appeal, this Court  

A  

B  

c  

D  

E  

F  

G  HELD: 1. The Medical Board sympathetically considered the  

appellant's capability pursuant to the directions given ~y this Court.  Tberef ore, the appellant may not be justified in making 1my allegations  against the Board. Suffice to state that in view of the findings given by the  Medical Board, assisted by the Engineers, the Court does not think that H  

657

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.  

A it can direct the Board to absorb the apellant either as Sub-Station  Attendant or in any equivalent post on the technical side. (660-D]  

2. This Court cannot also give directions to the respondents to  

appoint the appellant as U.D.C. which carry equal pay. The reasons are  

B that there are two channels of appointment to the post of U.D.C. One is  promotion and another is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed at 75%  

c  

and 25% respectively. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation  

or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification required  

apart from the other requirements. Admittedly, the appellant is not pos·  

sessed of the qualifications. He is only Matriculate. (660-F-GJ  

3.1. Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of  right to life. When an employee is affiicted with unfortunate disease due to  which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding,  the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which  

D the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. [ 660-H; 661-A]  

E  

3.2. In the inscant case asking the appellant to discharge the duties  

as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a Matriculate, he is eligible  

for the post of L.D.C. for which apart from matriculation, passing in  

typing test either in Hi"di or English at the speed of 15/30 words per  minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not must. The respon-

dent board is directed tn relax bis passing of typing test and to appoint  

him as a L.D.C. Admittedly on the date when he had the unfortunate  

operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300.  Necessarily, therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected which shall  

F be so done. The Respondent-Board shall pay all the arrears of salary to  the appellant. (661-B-C)  

G  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of  1994.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1990 of the Punjab &  Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 8290 of 1990.  

M.C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Appellant.  

H Manoj Swarup, for the Respondents.

N.K. CHANDLA v. STATEOFHARYANA 659  

The following Order of the Court was delivered: A  

Special leave granted.  

1. The appellant while working as a Sub-Station Attendant in the pay  seal~ of Rs. 1400-2300, unfortunately had to be operated on February 13,  1984 for Chondrosarcoma and eversince he was treated in Tata Me~orial B  Hospital, Bombay upto March 18, 1985 and threrafter he was discharged  and his right arm was compelely amputated due to the said Sarcoma. It is  

I a cancer affect but it was arrested. The Doctor in his letter dated May 3,  1985 recommended that he can assume his normal duties. The bone of his  right arm is completely missing. He shall work properly with his left arm C  Subsequently, the respondents have absorbed his as Carrier Attendant in  the pay scale of Rs. 825-1300. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant ap- proached the High Court and the High Court in the impugned order  dismissed the writ petition on October 10, 1990 in limine. Thus this appeal  by special leave.  

D  2. On September 24, 1993, we directed the State Electricity Board,  

hereafter the 'Board', to constitute three members' Board of Doctors to  examine the appellant whether he can discharge the duties of Sub-Station  Attendant or any other equivalent post carrying the pay scale of Rs.  1400-2300. We had also directed to associate any Engineer of the rank of E  Executive Engineer working in the officer' of the respondents to assist the  Medical Board in giving proper advice to the Board to come to its  conclusion on the point noted above. The three members Board was  accordingly constituted and the Chief Medical Officer in his letter dated  October 19, 1993 has submitted the report of the three members' Board.  They have stated that two Engineers assisted them. They had taken the F  appellant to 66 KV Sub-Station at Panchkula to assess his capability in the  operation of some installations. The report states: "He was unable to align  the trolley let alone take it in position. He also failed to raise it and had a  great difficulty in lowering it. He was then taken to switch yard and was  asked to operate the Isolator which he could not perform efficiently. The G  Medical Board feels that such handling of equipment can be risky not only  to the installations but even to the person himself and as such the appellant  cannot perform the duties of Sub-Station Attendant".  

3. The Medical Board also attempted to find whether he can be  posted as Sub-Station A.F.M., Foreman Grade Ill, Chargemen, Rigger, H

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.  

A Crane Driver, Welder, etc. It recommended that the duties to those posts  are similar to the Sub-Station Attendant. Under these circumstances, the  

Medical Board felt that the appellant who failed to perform his duties as  

Sub-Station Attendant cannot also discharge the duties of alternative posts  

as mentionecd above. They have also stated that the appellant has been  B able to write English and Hindi with his left hand and if the Board feels,  

he can be considered for clerical or non-technical post subject to his  

meeting educational administrative requirements of the Board.  

4. In the objections filed by the appellant he mentioned that he was  

performing the duties in 33 KV and that there is no prior practice given  

C to him for handling 66KV and his Advocate was not permitted to attend  at the time when he was examined thereby sought to make some allegations  against the Medical Board. We pay no heed, nor countenance such unwar- ranted allegations against an impartial Board which has no axe to grind  against the appellant. The Medical Board s.ympathetically considered the  

D appellant's capability pursuant to the directions given by this Court. There- fore, he may not be justified in making such allegations against the Board.  

S'!dfice to state that in \riew of the findings given by the Medical Board  

assisted by the Engineers, we do not think that we can direct the Board to  give suitable post to absorb the appellant either as Sub-Station Attendant  

or any equivalent post on the technical side.  E  

5. However, we have considered the material placed before us by the  respondents relating to qualifications, etc., for working on the clerical or  

non-technical side as suggested by the Medical Board. Though, Shri M.C.  

Bhandare, learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue for  

F directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as U .D.C. which carry  equal p

1

ay scale, we think that we cannot give such directions. The reasons  

are that there are two channels of appointment to the post of U.D.C. One  is promotion and another is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed ar  75% and 25%. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation or law  graduation is the minimum educational equalificaiton required apart from  

G other requirements mentioned therein. Admittedly, the appellant is not  possessed of the qualifications. He is only matriculate. As a result we  cannot give any direction to appoint him as U.D .C.  

6. Ajt~cle 21 protects the right to livelihood as an intergral facet of  H right to life. when an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to  

•

N.K.CHhNDLA v.STATEOFHARYANA 661  

. which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, A  the empoloyer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which  the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. Asking the appel- lant to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he a  matriculate, he is eligible for the post of L.D.C. For L.D.C., apart from  matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed B  of 15/30 words per minute is neces:;ary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not  a must. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct  respondent Board to relax his pa.Ssing of typing test and to appoint him as  a L.D.C. Admittedly on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he  was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Necessarily,  therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been C  rehabilitated in the post of L.D.C. we direct the respondent to appoint him  to the post of L.D.C. protecting his scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 and direct  to pay all the arrears of salary.  

The .appearis accordingly allowed. No costs.  

G.N. Appeal allowed.