PETITIONER:
JASWANT SINGH & ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High made on July 18, 1995 in CWP Nos.3020 and 3027 of 1994.
The appellants were appointed as drivers. while in service, they became blind and, therefore, they sought for alternative appointment. Instead, they were removed from service. The controversy is no longer res integra. This court in Anand Bihari vs. Rajasthan S.R.T.C. [(1991) 1 SCC 731] had considered the controversy in similar circumstances and issued directions for alternative appointment as indicated in paragraph 15 of the judgment.
"In view of the helplessness shown
by the corporation, we are
constrained to evolve a scheme
which according to us, would give
relief as best as it can to the
workmen such as the ones involved
in the present case. While evolving
the scheme and given these
directions we concerned are
incapacitated to work only as
drivers and are not rendered
incapable of taking any other job
either in the Corporation or
outside. Secondly, the workmen are
at an advanced age of their life
and it would be difficult for them
to get a suitable alternative
employment outside. Thirdly, we are
also mindful of the fact that the
relief made available under the
scheme should not be such as would
induce the workmen to feign
disability which, in the case of
disability such as the present one,
viz, the development of a defective
eyesight, it may be easy to do.
Bearing in mind all the aforesaid
factors, we direct the Corporation
as follows;
(i) The Corporation shall in
addition to giving each of the
retired workmen his retirement
benefits offer him any other
alternative job which may be
available and which he is
eligible to perform.
(ii) In case no such alternative
job is available, each of the
workmen shall be paid along
with his retirement benefits,
an additional compensatory
amount as follows;
(a) Where the employee has put in
5 years or less than 5 years
service the amount of
compensation shall be
equivalent to 7day’s salary
per of the balance of his
service;
(b) Where the employee has put in
more then 5 years but less
then 10 years, service the
amount of compensation shall
be equivalent to 15 days’
salary per year of the balance
of his service;
(c) where the employee has put in
more then 10 years’ but less
than 15 years’ service the
amount of compensation shall
be equivalent to 21 days’
salary per year of the balance
of his service:
(d) Where the employee has put in
more then 15 years but less
than 20 years’ service, the
amount of compensation shall
be equivalent to one month’s
salary per year of the balance
of his service;
(e) Where the employee has put in
more than 20 years’ service
the amount of compensation
shall be equivalent in two
months salary per year of the
balance of his service.
The salary will mean the total
monthly emoluments that the workman
was drawing on the date of his
retirement.
(iii)If the alternative job is not
available immediately but
becomes available at a later
date, the Corporation may
offer it to the workman
provided he refunds the
proportionate, shall be that
of the workman.
(iv) the option to accept either of
the two reliefs, if an
alternative job is offered by
the Corporation, shall be that
of the workman. <SLE>
Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the cases of the appellants for alternative appointment as and when vacancies arise. No costs.