R.P. Sethi, J. - (1.) AFTER completion of 55 years of age on 31.7.1991, the petitioner was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani, for medical examination vide order dated 5.7.1991. The Chief Medical Officer vide his letter dated M 1/91/116 dated 18.7.1991 informed the respondents that the petitioner was unfit for driving heavy vehicles and that he should be given light duty for one year. However, finding that excepting the driving the petitioner cannot perform any light duty, the respondents relieved him from his duty with effect from 31.7.1991 after noon vide Annexure P/1 dated 27.7.91. It is submitted that the order impugned is arbitrary and discriminatory which is liable to be quashed. The action of the respondents has been termed to be perverse and discriminatory. It is submitted that even if the order is presumed to be an order of pre -mature retirement, the same is illegal being violative of the provisions of law applicable in the case. Under similar circumstances, the writ petition filed by Jagdish Chander, Driver, bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 1991, was allowed by this Court on 25.4.1990.
(2.) NO return has been filed by the respondents in the case. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in 'Anand Bihari and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. : A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1003, with a prayer that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case also the Drivers employed to drive the roadways buses of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation who had put in long service were discharged from the service after routine medical examination showing that they had developed defective eye -sight having no required vision for driving heavy motor vehicles like the buses for which they were engaged by the Corporation. The Supreme Court in that case noted the facts and held that: - "... The facts on record show that all the workmen have put in service with the Corporation for long periods. All of them are above 40 years of age. Their Superannuation age is 58 years. There is no dispute that they developed a week or sub -normal eye -sight or lost their required vision on account of their occupation as drivers in the Corporation -As is commonly known. The drivers of the buses run by the Corporation such as the present one, have to drive the heavy motor vehicles in sun, rain, dust and dark hours of night. In the process, they are exposed to the glaring and blazing sun light and beaming and blinding lights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. They are required to strain their eye -sight every moment of the driving. Keeping a watchful eye on the road for the bumps, bends and slopes, and to avoid all kinds of obstacles on the way. It is this constant straining of eyes on the road which takes its inevitable toll of the vision. The very fact that in a short period, the Corporation had to terminate the services of no less than 30 drivers who are before us shows the extent of the occupational hazard to which the drivers of the Corporation are exposed during their service. It also shows that weakening of the eye -sight is not an isolated phenomenon but a widespread risk to which those who take the employment of a driver expose themselves. Yet the Corporation treats their cases in the same manner and fashion as it treats the cases of other workmen who on account of reason not connected with the employment suffer from ill -health or continued ill -health. That by itself is discriminatory against the drivers. The discrimination against the employees such as the drivers in the present case, also ensues from the fact that whereas they have to face premature termination of service on account of disabilities contracted from their jobs, the other employees continue to serve till the date of their superannuation. Admittedly, no special provision is made and no compensatory relief is provided in the service condition for the drivers for such premature incapacitation. There is no justification in treating the cases of workmen like drivers who are exposed to occupational disease and disabilities on par with the other employees. The injustice, inequity and discrimination is writ large in such cases and is indefensible. The service conditions of the workmen such as the drivers in the present case, therefore, must provide for adequate safeguards to remedy the situation by compensating them in some form for the all -round loss they suffer for no fault of theirs.";