Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Prabhu Chamar, husband of the petitioner died on 11.3.1983 leaving behind the petitioner and one daughter. Considering her application for compassionate appointment, respondents issued a letter appointing her as a Garden Mazdoor, Category I vide letter dated 23.5.1988, subject to the medical fitness. It was thereafter detected that the petitioner was a patient of 'Mitral Stenosis' as has been stated at paragraph 4 of the counter - affidavit. At paragraph 4 the respondents have stated that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and she had to perform physical work but due to the aforementioned serious ailment, she cannot perform any job and the respondents cannot permit her to join as she has been declared medically unfit, four times by the Medical Board. At paragraph 11, the respondents have stated that the petitioner cannot be granted employment since her ailment is of such a nature that according to the doctors, she can collapse any moment due to non -supply or inadequate supply of blood to the heart chamber and therefore, they have submitted that they cannot provide employment to the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that the aforementioned statement was made in the counter -affidavit which was filed in the year 1995 and the four examinations by the Medical Board are supposed to have been held on 8.6.1988. 7.8.1990, 7.6.1993 and 21.2.1994. Mrs. M,M. Pal. learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 6 appended to the reply of the counter - affidavit which contains a Medical Certificate of Dr. D. Mohan and who has certified that the petitioner is suffering from 'Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis', yet at present it was mild and not producing symptoms and she was fit for light duty such as peon's job, sweeper's job, gardener etc. Mrs. M.M. Pal has further stated and submitted that the petitioner is still very much alive and is some how or the other looking after herself and her daughter by working as a maid servant.
(3.) The counter -affidavit having been filed in the year 1995 and the petitioner being said to be alive and working as maid servant, perhaps, the respondent, therefore, are required to assess once again as to whether the petitioner deserves to be given a very light duty, such as the duty of a clerk receiving the daily daks (peon) involved in sedentary nature of job.;