NARENDRA KUMAR CHANDLA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 04-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
NARENDRA KUMAR CHANDLA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYAN.A AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Service Law: Employee holding a technical post-Afflicted with certain 
disease-Amputation of right hand-Reasonably prevented from performing 
duties in the technical jolr-£mployer offering alternative post with lesser pays-
cale-Validity of 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21--Right to life includes right to 
livelihood. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant was working as Sub-Station Assistant with the 
Respondent Electricity Board in the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2300. Due to D 
cancer his right arm was completely amputated. He could work only with 
his left arm. The Respondents absorbed him as Carrier Attendant, which 
carried a lesser pay scale. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court 
by filing a Writ Petition. The Hig_h Court having dismissed the Writ 
Petition, appellant preferred the present ~ppeal. 
E 
This Court directed the Respondents to constitute a Board of three 
doctors and an Executive Engineer to find out whether the appellant could 
discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post 
in the same pay scale. The Board reported that the appellant failed to 
perform his duties as Sub- Station Attendent or equivalent technical posts. 
The Board also recommended that the appellant could be considered for 
clerical or non-technical post subject to his meeting educationl, ad-
ministrative requirements of the Electricity Board. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. The Medical Board sympathetically considered the 
appellant's capability pursuant to the directions given ~y this Court. 
Therefore, the appellant may not be justiiied in making any allegations 
against the Board. Suffice to state that in view of the findings given by the 
Medical Board, assisted by the Engineers, the Court does not think that H 
657 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A it can direct the Board to absorb the apellant either as Sub-Station 
Attendant or in any equivalent post on the technical side. (660-D] 
2. This Court cannot also give directions to the respondents to 
appoint the appellant as U.D.C. which carry equal pay. The reasons are 
( 
B that there are two channels of appointment to the post of U.D.C. One is 
promotion and another is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed at 75% 
and 25% respectively. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation 
or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification required 
apart from the other requirements. Admittedly, the appt>llant is not pos· 
~-
c 
sessed of the qualifications. He is only Matriculate. [660-F-G] 
3.1. Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of 
right to life. When an employee is affiicted with unfortunate disease due to 
which, when be is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, 
the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which 
D the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. [660-H; 661-A] 
3.2. In the instant case asking the appellant to discharge the duties 
as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a Matriculate, he is eligible 
for the post of L.D.C. for which apart from matliculation, passing in 
typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per 
E minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not must. The respon· 
.dent board is directed te relax his passing of typing test and to appoint 
him as a L.D.C. Admittedly on the date when he had the unfortunate 
operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. 
Necessarily, therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected which shall 
F 
be so done. The Respondent-Board shall pay all the arrears of salary to 
the appellant. [661-B-C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1990 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 8290 of 1990. 
M.C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Appellant. 
H 
Manoj Swarup, for the Respondents. 
) 
N.K CHANDLA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
659 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
A 
Special leave granted. 
1. The appellant while working as a Sub-Station A~tendant in the pay 
scale of Rs. 1400-2300, unfortunately had to be operated on February 13, 
1984 for Chondrosarcoma and eversince he was treated in Tata Me~orial B 
Hospital, Bombay upto March 18, 1985 and threrafter he was discharged 
and his right arm wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.