of Haryana & Ors Vs. Surjeet Singh 
INSC 774 (9 July 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (7) 202 1996 SCALE (5)493
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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.
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 should follow due to the above
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
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.
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.
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.