- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on 27.03.1981 as Arm Guard. On 31.01.2002 while on duty, the petitioner sustained gunshot injury. Since, the petitioner was unable to perform his duty, he was paid allowance of Rs. 7500/ per month between the period 01.02.2002 and 23.08.2006. On 23.08.2006, a Medical Board was constituted which declared the petitioner fit to join duty. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal and on 19.03.2009 the Medical Board assessed the extent of disability at 35%. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred another appeal and the matter was referred to Labour Rehabilitation Officer, Hazaribagh. On 15.12.2009, the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh examined the petitioner when, it was found that the petitioner has suffered 70% disability. The petitioner however, joined the duty on 14.11.2009 under protest. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment for his son on compassionate ground and for payment of salary, allowances, etc. between the period 01.02.2002 and 19.11.2009 with interest.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed stating that, since the petitioner was declared fit for alternate duty however, he did not join duty on or after 29.03.2007, he was not paid full salary, allowances, etc. It has also been stated by the respondents that after the petitioner sustained gunshot injury and became disabled to perform his duty, he was paid "Injury on Duty" wages and his salary was credited in his salary account. A plea has taken that since, the petitioner resumed his duty and continued to work satisfactorily for which, he was paid full salary, allowances, etc. his claim for premature retirement was not accepted. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the extent of disability, the petitioner suffered due to gunshot injury, has been assessed at 70% on 15.12.2009 and therefore, the assessment dated 23.08.2006 declaring the petitioner fit to join 'alternate duty' is apparently wrong. In view of assessment by the Civil Surgeon on 15.12.2009, it can be concluded that on 23.08.2006 also, the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner was 70%. It is confirmed by a document produced by the respondents themselves, a copy of which is filed as AnnexureK to the counteraffidavit. It appears that the petitioner was examined by the Central Medical Board on 25.01.2012 where he was declared unfit. In these facts, I am of the opinion that the plea taken by the respondents that after the petitioner suffered gunshot injury, he was rightly paid "Injury on Duty" wages, is not correct and it is liable to be rejected.;