Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned compassionate appointment after compulsory retirement on medical grounds. The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Haryana against an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondent had been appointed as a driver of a heavy vehicle on December 24, 1986. On September 3, 1993, a Medical Board examined him and found that he was suffering from a disability, opining that he could not perform the duties of a heavy vehicle driver. Consequently, he was retired from service. He then applied for appointment of his son as a clerk on compassionate grounds, relying on government instructions. The government considered his representation and rejected it on the ground that the respondent was neither blind nor 'nakara' (totally invalid) on the date of retirement, and therefore was not entitled to compassionate appointment for his son. Aggrieved, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4088 of 1995 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition by order dated August 29, 1995, holding that the declaration of unfitness on medical grounds, in other words his invalidity in service, attracted the government instructions dated August 28, 1992, and consequently he was entitled to have his son appointed on compassionate grounds. The State of Haryana challenged that order before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the government instructions dated February 22, 1991, read with instructions dated August 28, 1992, entitled an employee who had become blind or 'nakara' during service and was compulsorily retired on that account to appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, and whether the respondent satisfied that requirement. The State argued that the respondent was neither blind nor totally invalid at retirement and only had a sight deficiency that prevented driving heavy vehicles. The respondent relied on the High Court's reasoning that medical unfitness for the post amounted to invalidity and thus attracted the instructions. The Supreme Court examined the instructions and observed that they clearly indicated that an employee who was compulsorily retired should suffer from blindness or 'nakara' while in service, and the compulsory retirement should follow due to those factors. In the present case, the medical evidence showed only a deficiency in sight, which made him unfit to drive a heavy vehicle, but did not mean he was totally blind or totally invalid. The Court held that the High Court's view that medical unfitness for driving was equivalent to total invalidity was not correct in law. However, the Court noted that pursuant to the High Court's direction, the respondent's son had already been appointed and was in service. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the appointment order, but expressly stated that the High Court's view was not approved and was incorrect in law. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility on Medical Grounds - Haryana Government Instructions dated February 22, 1991 and August 28, 1992 - The respondent, a heavy vehicle driver, was compulsorily retired due to deficient eyesight, not total blindness or total invalidity ('nakara'). The Supreme Court held that the instructions require that compulsory retirement be due to blindness or 'nakara' while in service, and partial visual deficiency preventing safe driving of a heavy vehicle does not satisfy that condition. Held, the High Court's view that medical unfitness for driving equates to total invalidity is incorrect in law. B) Supreme Court Practice - Special Leave Petition - Discretionary Non-Interference - Not applicable - Since the respondent's son had already been appointed and was in service pursuant to the High Court's direction, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, despite holding the High Court's view incorrect, to avoid unsettling a fait accompli. Held, the order of the High Court is not to be taken as approved, but the appointment is not disturbed, and the appeal is disposed of with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government instructions dated February 22, 1991 read with instructions dated August 28, 1992 enable an employee who became blind or 'nakara' during service and was compulsorily retired on that account to be entitled to appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, and whether the respondent satisfied that requirement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was not correct in law and was not to be taken as approved, but declined to interfere with the order because the respondent's son had already been appointed and was in service pursuant to the High Court's direction. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment under government instructions requires employee to be blind or 'nakara' (totally invalid) at time of compulsory retirement
- compulsory retirement must follow from such condition
- partial disability or deficient eyesight preventing heavy vehicle driving does not amount to total blindness or total invalidity
- High Court's equating medical unfitness with total invalidity is incorrect
- Supreme Court may decline to interfere in special leave due to fait accompli despite legal error
- no costs
