- (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the respondents on May 1, 2003 whereby the petitioner has been retired from service or the Board on compassionate ground in view of the fact that he was declared medically unfit i. e. on account of loss of vision.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1999 while performing his duty, the eye sight of the petitioner was damaged on account of sudden flash of the sparking in the electricity light. On account of the said sparking, he lost his vision and was declared medically unfit by the board of Post Graduate Institute of Medical science, Rohtak on March 21, 2000 and order of retirement had been passed on May 1, 2003 though w. e. f March 21, 2000.
(3.) THE petitioner has relied upon provision of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right and full Participation) Act, 1995 to contend that he cannot be removed from service on account of the disability suffered during the course of employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another AIR 2003 SC 1623 : (2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003-II-LLJ-735. In the said judgment, it was held to the following effect at p. 738 of LLJ: "9. . . . Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to- give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain, casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. ";