- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J.-Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.6.2004, passed by respondent No. 4. The petitioner is an employee of Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, G.T. Road, Kanpur (hereinafter referred as 'the Company'). He is working on the post of Wood packer since 1976. It is alleged that the petitioner is disabled person and he is blind by left eye and right eye is also defective and as such he is 80% disabled. The circular/ letter dated 18.6.2003, provides that the Chairman/Managing Director of the Corporation has power to give appointment to the son of the disabled employee working in the Corporation seeking his retirement and proposing appointment of his son in his place. He made an application dated 17.2.2004, before respondent No. 3, the Chairman/Managing Director of the Corporation for giving appointment to his son considering the disability. The application for appointment of the son of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.6.2004, on the ground that extent of blindness of left eye as shown in the Disability Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer was 80% and his vision of right eye had been found normal. The medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur, is as under : "Office of the Chief Medical Officer Ghazipur O.S. 1,87 Dated 1.5.2003 Certificate for Handicapped Person We examined Sri �?U �� � �"U aged about 60 years s/o S?� ?U�? �� � � �"U village/Mohalla �"U??U (?U?�?U��) Post �"U??U district Ghazipur, whose signature Othapacio is given below and certified that he is a case of RE-HM LE Blind 80% (Eighty %) We certified that he is permanently physically handicapped. Sd. Illegible Othapacio Signature Attested Photo of the candidate. Sd. Illegible ENT. Surgeon Sd. Illegible Eye Specialist 1.5.2005 Sd. Illegible Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur."
(3.) THE reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner given in the order is that as per Clause 26A of Schedule I to Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the disability of partial loss of vision in one eye is equal to Section 2 (i) of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, "person with disability" means a person suffering from not less than 40% per cent of any disability. THE application of the petitioner was rejected as it was not covered under the Scheme of Employment to Dependents of Disabled Employees as implemented by the Corporation vide order dated 18th August, 2003 and office order dated 8th January, 2004. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Item Nos. 25 and 26A of Schedule I under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as under : "25 Loss of one eye, without complication, the other being normal 40 26 Loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal" 30 26A Loss of partial vision of one eye" 10;