GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service and direct the respondents to grant him alternative employment of the same or equivalent status. The relief is claimed on the provisions of section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the '1995 Act').

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Linesman (ALM) w.e.f. 18.10.2010 on contract basis through the contractor and was sent along with Shri Naresh Kumar, ALM and Shri Sansar, ALM, for repairing common pole cable of transformer of the Mumtajpur village. On reaching there, he was told by Gopichand, Lineman and Naresh Kumar, ALM that the electricity line had been switched off and he was told to remove the cable and repair the same. He was asked to climb up the poll and under the threat of losing his job, he climbed up the poll and brought down the cable. When he was joining the cable, he was electrocuted and fell down and got spinal injury and became permanently disabled. Reliance is placed upon the disability certificate (Annexure P-1) issued by the Medical Board, Gurugram, wherein it was certified that he was 100% disabled, having post traumatic paraplegia. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the certificate is appended as (Annexure P-2) and certain benefits were granted under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and resultantly, provisions of Section 47 of the 1995 Act have been relied upon.

(3.) Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Secretary, (Admn.), JVVNL, Jodhpur and others v. Ashok Kumar and another 2014 (4) DNJ [Rajasthan] 1324. Resultantly, it has been pleaded that the public authorities especially those who are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to be fair and reasonable and the petitioner cannot be left to fend for himself by the respondent-Nigam, after becoming permanently disabled. Reference is also made to the repeated representations made and the recommendations made by the Minister for Power, for adjustment, which were of no avail. Resultantly, this Court has been approached.