Posthumous Reinstatement

Mahipal Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr

Filed under: Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: Mahipal Singh
Respondent: Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr
Citation: Civil Writ Petition No. 2765/2000, Decided on 03.06.2002 (Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Facts

Mahipal Singh was appointed as a Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation in August 1982. While on duty, he sustained an injury due to which, his right leg had to be amputated and his disability was assessed at 60%. The Corporation, in these circumstances retired Mahipal prematurely. Aggrieved, Mahipal filed a Writ Petition in this Court.

In support of his case he placed a circular on record to the effect that employees who sustained injuries on account of accidents while on duty may be suitably adjusted in alternative jobs during the period of injury, pending consideration of rehabilitation of such employees in view of certain judgments of this Court.

The subsequent development after the filing of the Writ Petition was that Shri Mahipal Singh expired on 10.6.2001 and his legal heirs were his widow, two sons and mother were brought on records who were then petitioners in the present petition.

Arguments made on behalf of legal heirs of Mahipal

It was argued on behalf of Mahipal thru’ his legal heirs that he was entitled to the protection under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Arguments made on behalf of DTC

It was argued on behalf of the Transport Corporation that since Mahipal had met with an accident not during the course of performance of his duty with the Corporation, the protection under the Act could not be availed by him.

Observations of the Court

Relying on various judgments, the Court quashed the termination order of Mahipal. He was to be notionally treated to have taken back into service from the date when the Corporation stopped paying full salary to him after the termination of his services and would be treated as in continuous employment without any break in service till he expired on 10.6.2001. His case would thereafter be treated as of an employee who had expired during service.

The emoluments due to him for the period for which he would have served along with benefits which would arise on account of his death in service would have to be calculated and paid to his legal heirs within a period of two months from the date of issue of the order. They were also entitled to costs of Rs.5000/-.

The Writ Petition was allowed

Sections Referred:

  • Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

Top