STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SURJEET SINGH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
SURffiET SINGH 
JULY 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Se1Vice Law : 
Compassionate appointment-lnstnictions issued by Govemmellt of 
Haryana dated Februa1y 22, 1991 read with instluctions dated August 28, 
1992-Applicability of 
A 
B 
c 
Driver--Medical unfitness-Deficie11cy in sight-Compulsory retire-
ment-Request for appointme11t of son as Clerk 011 compassio11at~ejection 
of-Writ-High Court held that invalidity in se1Vice attracts instructions for 
compassiol!Ote appointment and conseque11tly employee entitled to have his D 
son appointe~Appeal hy State-Held instructions apply only when compul-
sorily retired employee was suffering from blindness or became Nakara in 
service-In this case employee having deficiency in sight was not totally 
invalid or blin~Held view taken by High Court was not con-ect-But in view 
of the fact that employee's son had already been appointed inteiference with 
High Court order held not called for. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9509 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.95 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995. 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. 
Uma Datta for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent-Surjeet Singh was a driver of a heavy vehicle. He H 
421 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A was appointed on December 24, 1986. The Medical Board on his examina-
tion 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 hea'y 
vehicle driver due to the above disability. Pursuant thereto, he was retired 
B 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 
C 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 
D his son appointed on compassionate grounds. Calling that order in ques-
tion, this appeal has been filed by special leave. 
The only question is whether the instructions of the Government 
dated February 22, 1991 read with instructions dated August 28, 1992 
enable an employee having become blind or nakara during service and 
E 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 senoce 
and the compulsory retirement should follow due to the above factors. 
F 
In 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 sight. Consequently, 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 
G 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. 
H 
Under these circumstances, though we find that the view taken by 
STATE v. SURJEETSINGH 
423 
the High Court is not correct in law, we decline to interfere with the order. A 
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 o.f 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. 
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 
T.N.A

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