//
you're reading...
legal issues

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, etc.) Act, 1995 = a teacher with mental illness failed to attend her duties and as such she was removed from service due to lack of reply from her. after 3 she filed a complaint before commissioner for reinstatement as she was dismissed when she was under mental distress = For about three years, no action was taken by appellant. In the year 2007 she filed an application before the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act. The said application was registered as Case No. 253/2007. In the said application, the appellant took plea that the order of dismissal passed by the authorities while she was suffering from mental illness was in violation of Section 47(1) of the Act. The appellant requested for her reinstatement with full back­wages.= whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act can look into the legality of the order of dismissal from service of a disabled person, if it comes to his notice that the said person with disabilities has been deprived of his rights. whether the appellant was entitled for benefits under Section 47(1) of the Act. 13. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act was enacted in 1995 pursuant to meet the following object and reasons: (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii)to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis­à­vis non­ disabled persons; (iv)to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v)to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi)to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. “47 ­ Non ­discrimination in Government employments ­ (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 he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”= Learned Single Judge by interim order dated 11th January, 2008 directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant and to pay her regular salary w.e.f 1.2.2008 on the following terms: “8. RULE (a)By interim order, there shall be stay against the impugned order of the Commissioner to the extent that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any backwages to the respondent, but the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent in service by paying regular salary to her from 1.2.2008. (b)It is further observed that directed that the petitioner shall get respondent examined through a Government Doctor of their choice and if it is so opined by the doctor, such duty may be assigned to the respondent at a place or a nearby place, where she can comfortably and conveniently, in a safe atmosphere, discharge duty.”- Inspite of the same, the respondent authority have neither reinstated the appellant nor paid salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008. So, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and, thereby, cannot deny the benefit of wages to which the appellant was entitled pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 11th January, 2008. -There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondent authority got the appellant examined by a Government Doctor to determine the duty to be assigned to her. In view of her reinstatement, now the respondent authority may get opinion of the doctor for assigning her duty. In case the appellant is not in a position to perform the normal duty because of her mental condition, the competent authority will apply Proviso to Section 47(1) of the said Act. Having regard to the fact that we have upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, we direct the authorities to reinstate the appellant in service immediately and to pay her regular salary every month. The appellant shall be entitled to arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008 which the respondent shall pay within three months, else the appellant shall become entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008 till the actual payment. The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40492

Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9324 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.7647 of 2011)
GEETABEN  RATILAL PATEL          …
APPELLANT
VERSUS
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER          …
RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated
4th November, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of
Gujarat High Court in L.P.A.No. 1988 of 2009 whereby
the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent
Appeal   preferred   by  the  appellant  and  affirmed   the
order   dated   10th  December,   2008   passed   by   learned
Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition­Special   Civil
Application   No.   27730/2007.     In   the   said   writ
1Page 2
petition the order passed by the Commissioner under
Section  62  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal
Opportunities,   Protection   of     Rights   and   Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”)  in case No. 253/2007 was set aside.
2. The   main   question   that   arises   for   our
consideration   is   whether   the   Commissioner   under
Section 62 of the Act can look  into the legality of
the   order   of   dismissal   from   service   of   a   disabled
person,     if   it   comes   to   his   notice   that   the   said
person with   disabilities has been deprived of his
rights.
3. The     factual   matrix     of   the   case     is     as
follows:
The   appellant   who   was   appointed   on   30th    July,
1990   as   Primary   Teacher   in     Vagara   School     was
transferred   to   Primary   School,   Tal.Manda,   Bharuch
from 18th  June, 1999. Thereafter,   she proceeded on
medical leave from 21st June, 1999 to 30th July, 1999,
and remained on leave  upto 7th September, 1999.  In
that respect, she had not produced any type of leave
report.     Thereafter, from 15th  September, 1999, she
2Page 3
again   remained   absent   unauthorisedly   without
producing any kind of leave report.
4. In   the   meantime,     on   31st  December,   1999,   a
notice   was   issued   to   the   appellant   regarding   her
time to time absence and she was thereby   informed
to explain   in writing the grounds for her absence
within   seven   days.   But   neither   written   nor   oral
explanation   was     received   by   the   authorities.
Thereafter,  she  directly  resumed   her  duties  in   the
school   on     25th  November,   2000.     The   Principal   of
Primary   School,   Manad   had   informed   the   same   to
Taluka   Development   Officer,   Bharuch,   who   in   turn
intimated   the   same   to   the     District   Panchayat
Committee,   Bharuch.     After     resumption   of   duty   on
25th November, 2000, the appellant went on leave from
time   to   time   without   pay.     In   this   respect,     by
memorandum     letter   dated     28th  July,   2002   she   was
served with a charge­sheet   and  informed to submit
her explanation in writing within 7 days.  Since no
explanation was submitted by the appellant, she had
been   informed   in   writing   vide   letter     dated     4th
March, 2003 to submit the medical certificate of   a
Civil Surgeon with respect to her illness within 7
3Page 4
days.   But neither any medical certificate  nor any
explanation in writing or in oral,   was submitted.
By   letter   dated   30th  April,   2003     of     Taluka
Development   Officer,   Bharuch,     the   matter   was
referred to the higher authority.           Thereafter,
the final notice was issued by letter dated 9th July,
2003  directing  the   appellant   to  explain  in   writing
within   7   days   for   her   continuous   absence,
irregularity and carelessness towards her duty.  The
appellant failed to submit her reply or explanation
to   the   said   notice   within   the   stipulated   period.
Therefore, by giving another opportunity of defence,
a   reminder   letter   was   issued   on   25th  August,   2003
followed  by  another  letter  of  similar  nature  dated
28th  August, 2003.   Having received no reply again,
vide order dated 15th  April, 2004 she was dismissed
from service by the respondent under Section 24 of
the   Primary   Education   Act   read   with   Gujarat
Panchayat   Services   (Discipline   and   Appeal)   Rules,
1997   on   the   ground   of   carelessness   towards   duty,
absence from duty, irregularity, breach of orders of
the higher authorities and having badly affected the
future of the children.
4Page 5
5. For about  three years,  no  action  was  taken  by
appellant.     In   the   year   2007   she   filed   an
application before the Commissioner under Section 62
of     the Act.   The said application was registered
as Case No. 253/2007.   In the said application, the
appellant   took   plea   that   the   order   of   dismissal
passed   by   the   authorities   while   she   was   suffering
from   mental   illness   was   in   violation   of   Section
47(1) of the Act.   The appellant requested for her
reinstatement with full back­wages.
6. The   complaint   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   was
filed and verified by her father.     Therefore, the
Commissioner while issuing notice to the respondent
authority also issued notice to the appellant on 30th
June,   2007   calling   upon   both   the   parties   to   be
present on 24th July, 2007 at the time of hearing.
7. At   the   time   of   hearing   the   appellant   herself
remained present alongwith her father and on behalf
of   the   respondent   Shri   Maganbhai   B.   Vasava,   Head
Clerk and Shri Dilavarshinh A. Raj, Junior Clerk had
remained   present.     The   appellant   contended   that
though   she   was   physically   healthy   at   the   time   of
joining the services because of mental illness that
5Page 6
developed afterwards she was treated by doctors time
to   time,   who   advised   her   to   take   rest.     She
specifically pleaded that since she was divorced by
her husband in the year 1998,  she started suffering
from mental depression which resulted in 40 to   70
per   cent   mental   disability.     A   certificate   issued
by the Medical Board of Government Hospital was also
produced  before the Commissioner.
8. On behalf of respondent, it was contended that
the   appellant   unauthorisedly   remained     absent   from
service from time to time and   in spite of giving
opportunity to her, she never replied and because of
her   carelessness   and   negligence   towards   duty,   the
students suffered. It was further submitted that   a
charge sheet was also issued to her in this regard
but     having   received   no   reply   from   her,     she   was
dismissed from service.
9.  The Commissioner after hearing the parties and
on   perusal     of   the   evidence   held     that   as   the
appellant   was   suffering   from     40   to   70   per   cent
mental   disability   at   the   time   of   dismissal,     the
said order of dismissal was void. It was also held
that if  the appellant is not in a position  to work
6Page 7
in   the large educational interest of the students
then   an appropriate post should be created for her
and   her   appointment     to   that   post   be   made   as   per
Section   47   of   the   Act.   It   was   also   directed     to
count  the  intervening  period as continuous period
in service without any break and also to select the
place of service of the appellant in such a manner
that   she     can   live   with     her   parents     as   she
requires   constant   assistance   to   become   mentally
healthy.
10. The respondent challenged the  said order before
the   learned   Single   Judge   of     the   High   Court   in
Special   Civil   Application   No.   27730/2007.     In   the
said   case,   the   learned   Single   Judge   passed   an
interim   order   on   11th  January,   2008   with   following
observation:­
“2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for   both   the   sides,   it   prima   facie
appears   that   the   respondent   was
engaged   as   a   teacher     in   the   year
1990 and it is an admitted position
that she continued in service up to
1999,     for   a   period   of   about   9
years.  In the year 1999, on account
of the divorce, she sustained mental
disability and as a result thereof,
she   had   undergone   a   prolonged
treatment.     Due   to   mental
disability,   it   appears   that   she
7Page 8
might   not   have   appeared   in   the
inquiry proceedings initiated by the
petitioner.   As per the petitioner,
she   remained   absent   and   not   even
defended the inquiry proceedings and
the   order   of   dismissal   was   passed.
It   is   true   that   the   order   of
dismissal   is   not   challenged   by   the
respondent  before  the  higher  forum,
however,   she   has   approached   the
Commissioner   for   physically
Handicapped   persons   and   ultimately,
the   Commissioner   has   passed   the
order,   setting   aside   the   dismissal
and also interim directions.
3. Whether the Commissioner has no
power to set aside the order of the
dismissal   or   not   deserves
consideration,     but   at   the   same
time,  it also appears that it is on
account   of   the   mental   disability,
the   respondent   could   not   defend   in
the   proceedings   and   as   a   result
thereof,     the   order   of   dismissal
came   to   be   passed.     It   is   an
admitted   position   that   the
respondent is mentally disabled and,
therefore,   had   the   order   of
dismissal   not   been   there,   the
respondent otherwise would have been
entitled   to   the   benefits   of     the
Act,   namely;     The   Persons   with
Disabilities   (Equal   Opportunities,
etc.)   Act,   1995   and   more
particularly,     Section   47   of   the
Act.”
“4. Ms.   Mandavia,     learned   Counsel
appearing   for   the   petitioner,
however, submitted that it is not a
case   of   dismissal   from   the   service
on account of the mental disability
or   reduction   in   rank   and   ,
therefore,   if   the   dismissal   has
already   taken   place,     it   cannot   be
set aside by the Commissioner, which
8Page 9
may   result   into   consequential
reinstatement   in   service   with   back
wages   and   other   directions.     She
also   submitted   that   on   account   of
the   mental   disability   of     the
respondent,  she is not at all in a
position   to     discharge   any   other
work also.
5. Whereas,     Mr.   Jani,     learned
Counsel   appearing     for   the
respondent submitted that as per the
medical certificate produced on page
60   of   the   Chief   District   Medical
Officer and Civil Surgeon,   she has
mental   disability   upto   40   to   70%
and,   therefore,   she   may   be   in   a
position to do minor manual work in
the School,  if assigned to her.
6. It   appears   that   if   the   person
has   sustained   physical   disability,
including  that  of  mental  disability
while   in   service,     it   would   be
required for the authority to extend
benefit   of   Section   47   of   the   Act.
Keeping in view   the peculiar facts
and   circumstances   that   when   the
departmental actions were initiated,
she   had   already   sustained   mental
disability, a  pragmatic approach  is
required   to   be   taken.   Further,     it
will be for the concerned Doctor to
certify   regarding   the   nature   of
duty,     which   can   safely   and
conveniently   be   performed   by   the
respondent after due examination.
7. Since,   at   this   stage,       the
order   of   dismissal   is   yet   not
finalized by this Court,   there may
not be any payment of backwages and
ultimately whether the  Commissioner
has   power   or   not   is   an   aspect
finally to be decided at the   later
stage.     However,   it appears that
since   the   respondent   is   having
9Page 10
mental   disability   of   40   to   70   per
cent,   it would be just and proper
to allow the operation of  the order
passed by the Commissioner so as to
enable the respondent to get regular
salary and after examination by the
competent   doctor   appropriate   duty
may be assigned to her.
8. In view of the aforesaid,  I am
inclined   to   pass   the   following
order:­
RULE
(a)By interim order,  there shall be stay
against   the   impugned   order   of   the
Commissioner   to   the   extent   that   the
petitioner shall not be required to pay
any backwages to the respondent, but the
petitioner shall reinstate the respondent
in   service   by   paying   regular   salary   to
her from 1.2.2008.
(b)It   is   further   observed   that   directed
that the petitioner shall get respondent
examined   through   a   Government   Doctor   of
their choice  and if it  is so opined by
the doctor,   such duty   may be assigned
to the respondent at a place or a nearby
place,   where   she   can   comfortably   and
conveniently,   in   a   safe   atmosphere,
discharge duty.”
11. The   case   was   subsequently   taken   up   by   another
learned   Single   Judge   on   10th  December,   2008   who
finally   disposed   of   the   matter.     This   time     the
learned   Single   Judge   neither   perused   the   report   of
the     government   doctor   nor   noticed   the   question
10Page 11
whether the interim order passed by the High Court on
11.1.2008   was   complied   by   assigning     duty   to   the
appellant   at   the   nearby   place   where   she     can
comfortably   and   conveniently     in   safe     atmosphere
discharge   her   duties.     Learned   Single   Judge   also
failed   to   decide   the   question   whether   the
Commissioner  had jurisdiction to interfere with the
order   of   dismissal.     On     10th  December,   2008,
learned  Single Judge dismissed the  writ petition on
the following grounds  and observation:­
“14.   In   the   present   case,   the
respondent has remained on long leave
and   she   has   not   responded   to   any   of
the   communications   by   the   petitioner.
Her   services   were   terminated   in   the
year   2004   on   the   ground   of
absenteeism. Though the respondent was
asked   to   produce   certificate   she   has
failed to comply with the same.
15.  In   short,   after  2004   she   was   not
in   service   and   therefore,   the
respondent   cannot   rely   upon   the
provisions   of   said   section   which
clearly   states   that   no   establishment
shall   dispense   with,   or   reduce   in
rank,   an   employee  who   acquires   a
disability   during   his   service.  I   am
therefore   of   the   view   that   the   said
section   would   be   of   no   help   to   the
respondent.   Even   otherwise,   she   had
served   for   only   2   months   and   she
remained absent from 1990 prior to act
came into force.
11Page 12
16. As regards the contention that the
respondent sick, it is required to be
noted that the respondent was asked to
produce   medical   certificate   which   was
not   produced.   Further   it   is   required
to   be   noted  that   she   has   served  only
for 20 months in all.
17. Even otherwise the respondent was
dismissed   in   the   year   2004.   She   has
challenged   the   said   decision   after   a
period of more than three years, which
is   grossly   time­barred.   The   competent
authority ought to have applied their
mind   before   passing   the   impugned
order.   The   Commissioner   has   therefore
committed   an   error   in   setting   aside
the order of termination.
18.   In   any   case   the   absenteeism   is
from   the   year   1990,  prior   to   the   Act
came into force. The provisions of the
Act   will   apply   only   during   service.
Therefore   the   contention   of   the
petitioner cannot be accepted.
19.   It   is   also   required   to   be   noted
that   the   respondent   was   teacher   and
she   remained   absent   unreasonably   long
period   as   a  result   of   which  the  post
was vacant and the petitioner was not
able to appoint anybody. The ultimate
sufferers   were   the   students.   In   such
situation,   I   am  of   the   view  that   the
competent   authority   was   justified   in
dismissing   the   respondent   after
following the proper procedure.”
12. On an appeal, the Division Bench by its impugned
order   dated   4th  November,   2009   affirmed   the   order
passed by the  learned Single Judge and the same is
12Page 13
under challenge before this Court now.  The Division
Bench   also   committed   the   same   error   as   the   Single
Judge, by not deciding the question of jurisdiction
of   the Commissioner   and the question whether the
appellant   was   entitled   for   benefits   under   Section
47(1)  of  the Act.
13. The   Persons   with   Disabilities   (Equal
Opportunities,   Protection   of     Rights   and   Full
Participation) Act  was enacted in  1995 pursuant to
meet the following object and reasons:
(i) to spell out the responsibility of the
State   towards   the   prevention   of
disabilities,   protection   of     rights,
provision   of   medical   care,   education,
training, employment and rehabilitation
of persons with disabilities;
(ii) to create barrier free environment for
persons with disabilities;
(iii)to   remove   any   discrimination   against
persons with disabilities in the sharing of
development   benefits,   vis­à­vis     non­
disabled persons;
(iv)to   counteract   any   situation   of   the
abuse and the exploitation of persons with
disabilities;
(v)to lay down a strategy for comprehensive
development of programmes and services and
equalization   of   opportunities   for   persons
with disabilities; and
13Page 14
(vi)to   make   special   provision   of   the
integration   of   persons   with   disabilities
into the social mainstream.
14. To   decide   the   present     issue,   it   is   also
relevant to notice Section 47 of the Act which deals
with non­discrimination  in Government employment and
reads as follows:
“47  ­  Non­discrimination   in   Government
employments   ­  (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 he attains the
age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person
merely on the ground of  his disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may,
having regard to the type of work carried on
in   any   establishment,   by   notification   and
subject to such conditions, if any, as may be
specified   in   such   notification,   exempt   any
establishment   from   the   provisions   of   this
section.”
15. The   appointment,   function   and   duties   of   the
Chief   Commissioner   and   Commissioners   for   Persons
with Disabilities  have been laid down under Chapter
XII  of  the Act.
14Page 15
Under   Section   58(c)     of   the   Act   the   Chief
Commissioner   shall   take     steps   to   safeguard   the
rights   and   facilities   made   available   to   persons
with disabilities.
The Commissioner  is empowered  under Section 62
of the Act to look into the complaints in respect to
matters relating to deprivation of rights of  persons
with disabilities, which reads as follows:­
“62  ­  Commissioner   to   look   into
complaints   with   respect   to   matters
relating   to   deprivation   of   rights   of
persons   with   disabilities.­  Without
prejudice to the provisions of section 61
the Commissioner may of his own motion or
on the application of any aggrieved person
or   otherwise   look   into   complaints   with
respect to matters relating to­­
(a) deprivation  of rights of persons with
disabilities;
(b)   non­implementation   of   laws,   rules,
bye­laws,   regulations,   executive   orders,
guidelines or instructions made or issued
by   the   appropriate   Governments   and   the
local   authorities   for   the   welfare   and
protection   of   rights   of   persons   with
disabilities,
and     take   up   the   matter   with   the
appropriate authorities.”
16.      The provisions of Sections 47 and 62 of the
Act,   when   read   together,   empower   the   Commissioner,
to   look     into   the   complaint   with   respect   to   the
15Page 16
matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons
with   disabilities   and   non­implementation   of   laws,
rules,   bye­laws,   regulations,   executive   orders,
guidelines or instructions issued by the appropriate
Governments or local authorities and to   take up the
matter   with   the   appropriate   authorities for   the
welfare   and protection of   rights of persons with
disabilities   including   matter   relating   to
dispensation with service or reduction in rank.  The
power   of   the   Commissioner     “to   look   into   the
complaints   with   respect   to   the   matters   relating   to
deprivation of rights” as provided under Section 62
of   the   Act   is   not   an   empty   formality   and     the
Commissioner   is   required   to   apply   his   mind   on   the
question raised by the complainant   to find out the
truth behind the complaint.   If so necessary,   the
Commissioner   may  suo   motu    inquire   into   the   matter
and/or after giving notice,   hearing   the concerned
parties and going through the records may decide the
complaint.         If     it   comes   to   the   notice   of   the
Commissioner that a person with  disability has been
deprived of his rights or that the authorities have
flouted   any   law,     rule,     guideline,     instruction,
16Page 17
etc. issued  by the  appropriate Government or local
authorities,  the  Commissioner  is required to take
up   the   matter   with   the   appropriate   authority   to
ensure restoration of rights of such disabled person
and/or   to   implement   the   law,   rule,   guideline,
instruction if not followed.  A complaint may be made
by any disabled person himself   or   any   person on
behalf of  disabled persons or  by any person in the
interest   of   disabled   persons.     Thus   the   issue   as
involved is  decided  affirmatively in favour of the
appellant and against the respondent.
17. The appellant was appointed as   Primary Teacher
on   30th  July,   1990   and   continued   for     nine   years
without any complaint till she proceeded on medical
leave on   21st  June, 1999. She thereafter, remained
absent   from   time   to   time   for   about   1360   days   from
June,   1999   till     the   date   of   dismissal.     The
appellant   has   taken   a   specific   plea   that   she   was
divorced by her  husband in the  year 1998 and since
then she suffered mental depression.  The Government
Medical   Board   also   held   the   appellant   mentally
disabled as she was suffering from 40 to 70 per cent
mental     disability.     The   order   of   dismissal   was
17Page 18
passed during her mental disability  in violation of
Section 47(1) of the Act.   In this background,  the
Commissioner having declared the  order of dismissal
as   void,     it   was   not   open   to   the   High   Court     to
interfere with such order and to restore the illegal
order of dismissal.
18. Whether     under   Section   62   of   the   Act,   the
Commissioner  was  competent to declare the order of
dismissal  as void,  was one of the question framed
by     the   learned   Single   Judge   by   order   dated
11.1.2008.   But at the time of hearing,  the learned
Single   Judge   failed   to   notice   and   decide     the
question so raised. The Division Bench also failed to
notice the aforesaid  fact and remained silent on the
issue.
19. From   the   documents     on   record,   we   find   that
show cause notices were issued to the appellant  and
charges   were   framed   but     there   is   nothing   on   the
record   to   suggest   that   any   departmental   proceeding
was   initiated.     Neither   any   inquiry   officer   was
appointed, nor any  notice was issued by any inquiry
officer   to   the   appellant   to   remain   present   in   the
departmental   proceeding.   No       evidence   was   relied
18Page 19
upon   by   the   respondent   to   bring   home   the   charges.
Aforesaid facts also show that the order of dismissal
was       passed   in   violation   of   rules   of   natural
justice.
20. Now the  question remains about the back wages,
if any, to which the appellant is entitled.       The
appellant   remained absent   from duty from time to
time for about 1360 days  when she was  in service.
Therefore, she  cannot claim any wages for  the said
period.     The   order   of   dismissal     was   passed   on
15.4.2004,   but she moved   before the Commissioner
after a span of  three years i.e. in the year 2007.
There being delay on her part,  in moving before the
Commissioner,  she cannot  claim any salary  for such
intervening period.
21.       Learned   Single   Judge   by   interim   order   dated
11th  January,   2008   directed   the   respondent   to
reinstate the appellant and to pay her regular salary
w.e.f  1.2.2008 on the following  terms:
“8. RULE
(a)By interim order,  there shall be stay
against   the   impugned   order   of   the
Commissioner   to   the   extent   that   the
petitioner shall not be required to pay
19Page 20
any backwages to the respondent, but the
petitioner shall reinstate the respondent
in   service   by   paying   regular   salary   to
her from 1.2.2008.
(b)It   is   further   observed   that   directed
that the petitioner shall get respondent
examined   through   a   Government   Doctor   of
their choice  and if it  is so opined by
the doctor,   such duty   may be assigned
to the respondent at a place or a nearby
place,   where   she   can   comfortably   and
conveniently,   in   a   safe   atmosphere,
discharge duty.”
22. Inspite of the same,  the respondent  authority
have     neither     reinstated   the   appellant   nor   paid
salary   w.e.f.   1.2.2008.   So,   they   cannot   take
advantage of their own wrong and, thereby,   cannot
deny the benefit  of wages to which the appellant was
entitled   pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   the   High
Court on 11th January, 2008.
23. There is nothing on the record to suggest that
the respondent authority got the appellant examined
by a Government Doctor to determine the duty to be
assigned to her.   In view of her reinstatement, now
the   respondent   authority   may     get   opinion   of   the
doctor   for   assigning   her   duty.         In     case   the
appellant is not  in a position to perform the normal
20Page 21
duty because of her mental condition,  the competent
authority   will   apply     Proviso   to   Section   47(1)   of
the said Act.
24. Having regard to the fact   that we have upheld
the order  passed by the Commissioner,  we direct the
authorities     to   reinstate   the   appellant   in   service
immediately   and   to   pay   her   regular     salary   every
month.     The appellant shall be entitled to arrears
of salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008 which the respondent shall
pay   within   three   months,   else   the   appellant   shall
become entitled to interest at the   rate of 6% per
annum   with   effect   from   1.2.2008   till   the   actual
payment.
25. The   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   manner   indicated
above   and   the   orders   passed   by   the   learned   Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are
set aside.    There shall be no order as to costs.
..……………………………………………..J.
( G.S. SINGHVI )
.……………………………………………….J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA )
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2,  2013.
21Page 22
22

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,469 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: