R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Dr. O.P. Angira, HCMS (Retd.), has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant retiral benefits to him i.e. gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment for 104 days, group insurance, pay re-fixation w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and he has further made a prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to employ his son under Ex-Gratia Scheme and to quash the order dated 11.3.1998 vide which the request of the petitioner for employment of his son under the said scheme was declined.
(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- The petitioner joined the service of respondents as HCMS Class-II doctor on 8.1.1972 and after serving the respondents for about 23 years, he sought retirement on account of medical unfitness as he was suffering from 'acute diabetes', on 7.8.1995. On 27.9.1995, he was asked by respondent No. 3 to produce certificate of medical unfitness from the medical board. The petitioner appeared before the medical board on 27.9.1995 and the board opined vide report dated 27.10.1995 that he was fit to resume his duties. On 24.6.1996, respondent No. 3 inspected the hospital where the petitioner was posted as SMO and in the inspection report it was mentioned that respondent No. 3 has medically examined the petitioner, who was found unfit to discharge his duties. The petitioner was granted one month leave. On 8.7.1996, the petitioner submitted an application seeking retirement on account of his medical unfitness. The petitioner also issued a reminder to respondent No. 3 for getting him medically examined from the medical board on 13.8.1996. On 6.9.1996, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to be present before the medical board at Bhiwani. The petitioner was examined by the board and the board opined him medically unfit to perform his duties and that there are no chances of improvement. In pursuance of the report of the board, the petitioner was retired from service under Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II on 17.6.1997. Thereafter the petitioner asked the respondents to give employment to his dependent son under Ex-Gratia Scheme. On 11.3.1998, respondent No. 1 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement, so no employment could be given to his dependent son under the said Scheme. The petitioner submits that since it was not a voluntary retirement but it was a retirement on medical grounds such as bodily or mental infirmity and, therefore, the stand taken up by the respondents is not correct. Lastly, the petitioner served a legal notice and claimed the retiral benefits besides compassionate appointment for his son, but to no avail. Hence the present writ petition. The notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the respondents is that as the retirement of the petitioner was voluntary, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. It was also maintained by the respondents that the petitioner has not issued any declaration in the shape of affidavit that his income was less than Rs. 2,500/- per month from all resources other than family pension and in these circumstances, the case of the son of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.
(3.) In support of his case the petitioner has placed on record certain documents of which I shall make a reference in the later portion of this judgment.;