CWP No. 21383 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21383 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 18, 2009 Chamel Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The services of the petitioner were regularised as a driver on 5.5.1985. As a result of an accident which took place on 16.7.2001 the petitioner became unfit for driving since he lost one leg. By order dated 29.10.2002 the petitioner was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 31.10.2002 and a sum of Rs. 85,672/- was given as additional compensation along with other retiral benefits. By a subsequent order dated 10.1.2003 the petitioner was given the alternate job of peon and the amount of additional compensation was demanded back and is, in fact, being recovered in monthly instalments from the salary of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the CWP No. 21383 of 2008 2 coming into force of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 it was incumbent upon the respondents to continue the petitioner on any other post in the same pay scale and service benefits or if not possible then he was entitled to be kept on a superior post until suitable post was available or until he attains the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that by notification dated 27.6.2005 the posts of conductors and drivers were taken out of the purview of the provisions of Section 47 under the proviso. A similar situation had come up before this Court in CWP No. 227 of 2005 Pat Ram v. State of Haryana and others decided on 24.4.2006 wherein a Division Bench held as follows:- “The matter is, in fact, squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of GianChand v. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No. 18916 of 2004, decided on 15.12.2005). The Division Bench has held that the notification dated 27.6.2005 would not operate retrospectively and the same could not be applied to the case of the petitioner therein who was retired in the year 2002. In the present case also the petitioner has been retired in the year 2002 and the notification dated 27.6.2005 (R-2) is made to operate retrospectively. The Division Bench has rejected the stand of the respondents. Therefore, we find that the matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench.” CWP No. 21383 of 2008 3 In view of the above this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately post the petitioner in terms of Section 47 (supra) w.e.f. 1.11.2002. The arrears on this account be released to him. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 18 2009 sunita