Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who suffered disability in terrorist attack way back in the year 1989, has filed the present petition impugning the communication dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure P-15), whereby he has been denied appointment in that category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner suffered a gun shot injury in spinal cord on 25.10.1989 at Ferozepur. Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur issued disability certificate on 18.7.1990 certifying him to be 100% disabled due to injury in the spinal cord on account of complete paraplegia. He further referred to document dated 3.11.2005, vide which the petitioner was granted ex-gratia amount and also sanctioned Rs. 2,500/- per month as sustenance allowance. Subsequently, a disability certificate was issued on 27.7.2006 to the petitioner certifying him to be 100% physically disabled. The government issued a policy on 21.11.2002 for giving appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post to the dependent members of the family of the person killed or 100% physically disabled in terrorist action or by security forces acting in-aid of civil power in the State. As the petitioner had suffered 100% disability in terrorist attack, he was eligible for appointment in that category. In terms of the policy, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk being fully eligible. Vide communication dated 26.9.2008, the petitioner was directed to appear in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur on 7.10.2008. The petitioner appeared along with all requisite documents but his candidature was not considered. The disability certificate issued in his favour was sent for verification. Despite repeated requests, nothing was done. Vide communication dated 15.4.2010, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur intimated Senior Medical Officer-Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur that record of the certificate already issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.7.2006 is not available being old. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to be examined again to consider his disability. Vide certificate issued on 15.11.2011, the disability of the petitioner was found to be 70%, however, it was opined that he is fit for a job which is sedentary in nature and does not require active movement during working hour.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment on the ground that his disability, which was checked in the year 2011 was found to be 70%, hence not entitled to appointment in the category of terrorist victim, is arbitrary for the reason that the earlier certificate issued in his favour in the year 2006 clearly established that the petitioner was 100% disabled. In case, the disability had reduced with the passage of time to some extent, the same will not make the petitioner ineligible for the post. The disability of the petitioner was to be considered at the time when his application for the job was considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the policy of the government provided that only 100% disabled persons could be offered appointment in the category of terrorist affected, the disability of the petitioner being 70%, his case was rightly rejected as the State could not go beyond the terms of the policy.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The fact that the petitioner suffered gun shot injury in his spinal cord in terrorist attack on 25.10.1989 is not in dispute. It is also admitted that on that account, he was given ex-gratia and is being paid Rs. 2,500/- per month as sustenance allowance. The fact that the government issued a policy on 21.11.2002 providing employment to dependent members of the family of a person (bread winner) killed or 100% disabled in terrorist action or by security forces acting in-aid of civil power in the State, is also not in dispute. The issue is regarding disability of the petitioner. The claim set up by the petitioner is that he suffered 100% disability, whereas his case was rejected on the ground that disability of the petitioner is 70%, hence, he is not entitled to be considered for the job in terms of the policy.

After the petitioner suffered injury in terrorist attack, a disability certificate was issued to him on 18.7.1990 showing him to be permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. Subsequently, another certificate bearing No. 1678 was issued on 27.7.2006 showing the petitioner to be 100% disabled. The case of the petitioner for appointment in-terms of the policy was being considered in the year 2008, when he was called in person with all requisite documents on 7.10.2008, however, his candidature was not considered. A reference was made by Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur to Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur on 23.11.2008 for verification of the disability certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.7.2006. The authorities slept thereafter as no action was taken despite representations made by the widowed mother of the petitioner. It was on 15.4.2010 that Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur wrote to Senior Medical Officer-Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur seeking verification of the disability certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.7.2006. The same was returned in original by the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur to Civil Surgeon with the report that there is no record available in the office as the record of the same relates to the office of Civil Surgeon. Thereafter, the petitioner vide communication dated 16.3.2011, was directed to appear before Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur for determining his disability. The Medical Board, vide communication dated 15.11.2011, opined that the petitioner is 70% disabled. The rejection of the case of the petitioner is on that account.

A perusal of the reply filed by Civil Surgeon. Ferozepur shows that the factum that the disability certificate opining the petitioner to be 100% disabled was issued on 27.7.2006, has not been denied. However, it was stated that when the matter was referred again, the disability was examined and the petitioner was found to be 70% disabled as during the interregnum, the disability was reduced. The fact remains that on the date when the case of the petitioner was being considered for appointment in the category of terrorist affected persons, the certificate showing him to be 100% disabled has not been disputed. The position was same from the year 1989 till 2006. The petitioner had suffered gun shot injury in his spinal cord. Any subsequent medical examination of the petitioner three years after the petitioner was asked to appear along with requisite documents cannot be a good ground for denying him the benefit of the policy, the same being beneficial in nature and the fact that the petitioner had suffered gun shot injury in his spinal cord on 25.10.1989, being not in dispute. In case the disability of the petitioner has improved with the passage of time, the same will be beneficial for the employer as the petitioner will be able to discharge his duties effectively. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned communication dated 3.5.2012 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the policy is quashed. Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable post as per his qualification and in terms of the policy within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.