AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent was working as a driver in Provincial Armed Constabulary. The department made him to retire in 1978 on the ground of1 bad eyesight. After about 10 years he approached the State Public Service Tribunal challenging the order and mainly, contending that he has, by taking treatment petitioner to reexamine and give him a post on which he was working. In case he was not found suitable the Tribunal directed to give him any alternative or suitable employment. This has been questioned in this petition by the State. We find considerable force in the submission of the Standing Counsel that it is neither exdocuments referred to in the chargesheet pedient nor just to reexamine medically were not supplied to him has not been the person after about 20 years. However seriously disputed by the respondent. taking consensus of learned counsel for the parties we pass the following order.
That the petitioner shall provide suitable employment to the respondent No. 1 where perfection in eyesight is not a condition for performance of duties as precedent and where he can perform his normal duties. The respondent No. 1 on reinstatement to that post, shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, the period during which he was out of employment because of reiirement, shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefit. The pensionary benefit, in case if any, already paid shall be adjusted while releasing the final pension of the respondent. The petitioner shall comply this order within a period of four weeks.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.