Paras Ram vs State of H.P.

Piar Singh Rana, J.

1.Present Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that petitioner Paras Ram was appointed as Peon in the office of respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner Shimla District Shimla HP. It is further pleaded that petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia. It is further pleaded that thereafter wife of petitioner Smt. Urmila Devi applied for employment on compassionate ground. It is further pleaded that Civil Writ Petition No. 850/2010 titled Paras Ram Vs. State of HP and others was filed which was decided on 19.10.2010. It is further pleaded that respondents did not comply the direction of Hon''ble High Court of HP issued in Civil Writ Petition No. 850/2010 titled Paras Ram Vs. State of HP and another decided on 19.10.2010. It is further pleaded that at present vide order dated 16.6.2010 learned Deputy Commissioner Shimla passed office order of retirement of petitioner Paras Ram Peon from government service w.e.f. 16.6.2010 (A.N) under rule 38 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. It is further pleaded that the order of learned Deputy Commission Shimla dated 16.6.2010 is contrary to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). It is further pleaded that learned Deputy Commissioner also rejected the claim of Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Sh. Paras Ram and her son Deepak Kumar for employment on compassionate ground on dated 28.9.2011. It is further pleaded that order dated 16.6.2010 and order dated 28.9.2011 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner Shimla be set aside. It is further pleaded that son of Sh. Paras Ram namely Deepak Kumar be appointed on compassionate ground or consequential salary benefit be given to petitioner Paras Ram.

Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents pleaded therein that present petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that as per medical report Sh. Paras Ram is not fit to be retained in service due to his ailment health i.e. chronic schizophrenia. It is further pleaded that Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Sh. Paras Ram has received an amount of Rs. 1,32,797/- (One lac thirty two thousand seven hundred ninety seven) as retirement dues and is also receiving pension to the tune of Rs. 5285/- (Five thousand two hundred eighty five) per month and also receiving income from house property to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) per annum. It is further pleaded that total income of the family of Sh. Paras Ram is exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) per annum. It is further pleaded that as per policy of employment on compassionate ground the benefit could be given to those dependents only whose maximum family income does not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/-. (One lac). Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire records carefully.

Following points arise for determination in the present civil writ petition:

(1) Whether petitioner is legally entitled for benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 as alleged?.

(2) Whether wife of petitioner namely Urmila Devi or son of petitioner namely Deepak Kumar are entitled for employment on compassionate ground as alleged?

Finding upon Point No. 1.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner Paras Ram is suffering from chronic schizophrenia as per medical certificate placed on record issued by Dr. Gurpartap Singh and Dr. Savinder Singh posted as Medical Officer in Mental Hospital Amritsar. It is also proved on record that Sh. Paras Ram has sustained chronic schizophrenia when he was in service. It is proved on record that Sh. Paras Ram has not attained the age of superannuation as of today as per service rules. Court is of the opinion that the Persons with disabilities Act 1995 came into effect w.e.f. 07.02.1996 in order to protect the disabled person as defined u/s 2(i) of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995. Section 47 of the ''Act'' is quoted: "(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 until he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier."

In view of the above stated facts it is held that the case of the petitioner is covered u/s 47 of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995. As per Section 2(i) of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995 persons suffering from mental retardation and Mental illness falls under the Persons with disabilities Act 1995. It is held that petitioner is legally entitled to all the protection mentioned u/s 47 of the ''Act''. See Bhagwan Dass and Another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, . Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Finding upon Point No. 2.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the wife of petitioner namely Urmila Devi and son of the petitioner namely Deepak Kumar are also legally entitled for employment on the basis of compassionate ground is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that as per affidavit filed by learned Deputy Commissioner Shimla attested by Executive Magistrate Shimla that an amount of Rs. 1,32,797-/- (One lac thirty two thousand seven hundred ninety seven) has been paid to Smt. Urmila Devi wife of petitioner Paras Ram as retirement dues. It is proved on record that wife of petitioner namely Urmila Devi is receiving an amount of Rs. 5,285/- (five thousand two hundred eighty five) per month as pension. It is proved on record that the wife of petitioner is also earning income of Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) per annum from house property. It is proved on record that as per compassionate policy the dependent whose maximum family income exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) are not entitled for employment on the basis of compassionate ground. Court is of the opinion that two benefits cannot be given to the petitioner i.e. benefit of Section 47 of the ''Act'' as well as benefit of employment on compassionate ground simultaneously. As of today Sh. Paras Ram is alive and suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Hence it is held that petitioner Paras Ram is legally entitled for one benefit only i.e. benefit of Section 47 of the ''Act''.

In view of the above stated facts it is held (1) That petitioner Paras Ram will be entitled for all the benefit u/s 47 of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995. It is held that petitioner will be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until petitioner Paras Ram attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier. The office order of learned Deputy Commissioner dated 16.6.2010 Annexure P8 qua retirement of Sh. Paras Ram Peon is set aside. It is held that Sh. Paras Ram will be legally entitled for all the consequential benefit of supernumerary post as mentioned u/s 47 of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995 subject to adjustment of all dues paid to Sh. Paras Ram through his wife. (ii) Prayer of the petitioner that the wife of Sh. Paras Ram namely Urmila Devi or son of the petitioner namely Deepak Kumar be appointed on the basis of compassionate ground declined. Office order of learned Deputy Commission dated 28.9.2011 Annexure P10 declining employment on compassionate ground to the wife of petitioner Smt. Urimila Devi or son of petitioner namely Deepak Kumar is affirmed. It is held that two benefits i.e. benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with disabilities Act 1995 and the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted simultaneously to the petitioner. (iii) Other relief(s) claimed by petitioner declined and it is held that all other relief(s) merged in point No. 1 and 2 determined by the Court. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.