SADIYABHAI TITIABHAI NINAMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is father and the petitioner No. 2 is son. They have filed this petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the respondents be directed to retire the petitioner No. 1-Sadiyabhai Titiabhai Ninama voluntarily from service on medical ground and to grant all admissible retiral benefits with interest. They have also prayed that the petitioner No. 2 son of the petitioner No. 1 be directed to be appointed on compassionate ground as per Railway Board Scheme and under Sec. 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 [Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Fult Participation) Act, 1995].

(2.) Petitioner No. 1-Sadiyabhai Titiabhai Ninama belongs to Schedule Tribe. He was born on 1-6-1955. At a young age of 20, he was appointed as Police Constable in R.P.F. with effect from 27-3-1976. Later on he was promoted as Head Constable and when he was about to be further promoted to the higher post, unfortunately, while on duty he met with an accident wherein he lost both his legs while preventing theft and catching thief, as all of a sudden stationary goods train started when he was attempting to catch the thief. The said accident took place on 15/5/2000. On 28/5/2000, he was produced before the Chief Medical Superintendent, Western Railway, Baroda, who examined him and found him 100% disabled, and therefore, unfit as Head Constable. However, he has opined alternative sedentary job where he had not to walk long distance and to do heavy manual work. The Railways, as usual, slow in acting upon such report of the Chief Medical Superintendent, and for the first time, on 21/1/2003 by protecting his salary appointed him on the alternative post of Commercial Clerk at Godhra and asked him to undergo training at Udaipur. On receiving that letter dated 28/3/2003, immediately applicant had addressed a letter dated 1/4/2003 to the authority stating that the his both legs have been amputated in the accident which took place in 2000 and no artificial legs could be used by him. Therefore, looking to his family conditions, as he was not able to travel right upto Udaipur for training, he may be allowed to voluntarily retire.

(3.) At this stage, Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the Railways submitted that the petitioner was provided artificial limbs. Mr. Shah for the petitioner seriously disputes the same. Be that as it may, we would not like to go into controversy whether the petitioner was provided artificial limbs or not. The fact remains that he had lost both his legs, and therefore, even with the help of artificial limbs, it will not be possible for a person aged 50 to travel alone for such a long distance from Godhra to Udaipur.