Employment to a Family Member only if Declared ‘Disabled’

Lal Chand vs. State of Haryana and others

Filed under:Service Law
Appellant:Lal Chand
Respondent:State of Haryana and others
Citation: (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 760
Court:In the Supreme Court
Judge:S Saghir Ahmad and RP Sethi

Facts

Lal Chand was employed as a driver in the Haryana Roadways. He was retired from service on medical grounds as he was declared unfit to perform even light duties by the Medical Board. Compensation of Rs 89,000 was paid to him for the rest of his service period.

Subsequently, Lal Chand filed a Writ Petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that since he was declared medically unfit even to engage in light duty work; his son should have been employed as per the terms of the policy issued by the Haryana Government. This petition was dismissed by the High Court and Lal Chand then filed this appeal.

Arguments by the parties

Lal Chand’s lawyer contended that in addition to the benefits, which were made available to him at the time of retirement, he was also entitled to the benefit of employment being provided to one of his sons in Government Service as per the terms of the Government policy.

In response to these arguments the Haryana Roadways filed a counter-affidavit, which stated that Lal Chand was not declared to be blind or disabled (nakara) and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of employment being provided to one of his sons.

Observations of the Court

The Court paid particular attention to the meaning of the term of “nakara”, which had been mentioned in the notification. The Court pointed out that in the relevant Government policy, the term “nakara” had been used to explain the extent of disability of the employee concerned.

According to the Court, this term envisages that the employee on account of his disability has totally and completely outlived his utility.

The Court then examined the medical certificate submitted by Lal Chand on the basis of which he had claimed that he had become “nakara”. The Court held that this certificate did not categorize him as “nakara” or of no use.

The Court further explained that the policy formulated by the Government refers to an extreme case of blindness or a person becoming absolutely unfit for a government job. The unfitness has to be as disabling as blindness.

According to the Court, Lal Chand had not been declared blind. He had been described as being unfit for light duty but not as being a “nakara”. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cases Referred:

  • Anand Bihari vs. Rajasthan SRTC, (1991) 1 SCC 731