http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURJEET SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   202        1996 SCALE  (5)493

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The respondent-Surjeet  Singh was  a driver  of a heavy vehicle. He  was appointed on December 24, 1986. The Medical Board on  his examination  by  proceedings  dated  September 3,1993 found  that he  was suffering from Melineal Inter Cr. fractum resue/lant  by 5.2  un-c. Consequently,  the Medical Board opined that he could not perform the duties of a heavy vehicle  driver   due  to  the  above  disability.  Pursuant thereto, he was retired from service. He made an application for appointment  of his  son as  a  clerk  on  compassionate grounds on  the basis  of the  instructions  issued  by  the Government.  The   Government  on   consideration   of   his representation found  that the  respondent was neither blind nor nakara  (totally invalid)  on the date of his retirement and that,  therefore, he  is not entitled for appointment of his  son  on  compassionate  grounds  as  a  clerk.  Feeling aggrieved, he filed C.W.P. No.4088/95 in the High Court. The Division Bench  of the  Punjab & Haryana High Court by order dated August 29, 1995 held that the declaration of unfitness on medical  grounds, in  other words,  his invalidity in the service, attracts  the instructions issued by the Government dated August  28, 1992  and consequently  he is  entitled to have his  son appointed  on compassionate  grounds.  Calling that order  in question,  this  appeal  has  been  filed  by special leave.      The only  question is  whether the  instructions of the Government dated  February  22,1991  read  with  intructions dated August 28, 1992 enable an employee having become blind or nakara during service and compulsory retired from service on account  thereof, to  be entitled  for appointment of his son  on   compassionate  grounds.   It  is   seen  that  the instructions do  clearly indicate  that an  employee who was compulsory retired from service should suffer from blindness or nakara  while in  service and  the compulsory  retirement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

should follow due to the above factors.      In this  case, it is seen that he was neither blind nor nakara on the date of the compulsory retirement. The doctors found  him   that  he   was  having   deficiency  in  sight. Consequently, he could not drive the heavy vehicle. It would not mean  that he  was totally  blind. Due  to disability in sight, which  is a pre-condition for safe driving of a heavy vehicle, he  was retired  from service and it would not mean that he  was totally  invalid or  blind. But we are informed that pursuant  to the  directions issued  by the High Court, the son  of the  respondent has  been appointed and he is in service.      Under these circumstances, though we find that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law, we decline to interfere with  the order.  However, the  order of  the High Court is  not to be taken   to be approved by this Court. On the other  hand, we  specifically hold  that the view of the High Court  is not  correct in  law. However,  we decline to interfere with the subsequent order passed by the appellant- State pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court.       The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.