R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.8.2009 Gulab Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Major Singh filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2006. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated the case of the appellant is that R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 2 the present suit was filed by the appellant against the respondents for seeking a decree for declaration along with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. It is averred by him that he was employee of Haryana Roadways, Sirsa and was working as Chowkidar. When he was working in the said department he was declared medically unfit by the Special Medical Board, PGIMS, Rohtak vide Memo No.PHIMS/C II/Ex. V/2000 1668 dated 14.9.2000 and thereafter he was retired from service on medical grounds w.e.f. 26.9.2000 afternoon under Order 5.18 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. As per instructions of the Haryana Govt. bearing No.6/1/91-6 G.S. Dated 23.11.1992 one of the dependent of the appellant is legally entitled to get the post according to his qualification in the Govt. of Haryana or in the alternative appellant was entitled to get the alternative job or to get the additional compassionately amount for premature retirement on medical ground but at the time of his retirement he was not given any additional compassionately amount nor he has been given the alternative job nor his dependent has been given the appointment. In this way the action of the respondents for declining the said relief, is wrong, illegal and against law and facts. The appellant approached the R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 3 respondents several times and made request to admit his claim but to no purpose. Thereafter a legal notice dated 17.4.2003 was issued by learned counsel for the appellant. It is also alleged that Baldev Singh son of the appellant had also got issued a legal notice dated 26.4.2001 through Shri Jagdish Chander Gupta, Advocate, Mandi Dabwali for giving him appropriate appointment being the dependent of the appellant but the respondents did not bother to give any reply to the said notice and thereafter he has to file the present suit. 3. Notice of this suit was given to the respondents. They have filed the reply and has taken the preliminary objections i.e. maintainability; cause of action; concealment of true and material facts. On merits it is stated by them that the appellant is not entitled to any alternative job or additional compensation as per the said instructions of the Haryana Govt. because in the said instructions there is a provision of providing job to one of the dependent/family member of the employee who during their service became blind or permanently disabled. However, as per medical certificate issued by the Board of Doctors the appellant has not been declared permanently disabled nor he has been declared totally blind . The appellant has been declared unfit for the post R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 4 of Chowkidar due to his eye sight problem. These instructions are only applicable to the extent of service of drivers who during their service lost their eye sight and are declared unfit for driving bus due to poor eye sight. In the end they have denied other averments of the appellant.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the alternative job or get the additional compensation, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that since he has been retired on medical ground w.e.f. 26.9.2000, he was entitled to get an alternative job for himself or in the alternative additional compensation or further in the alternative one of his dependents was entitled to get a job. Admittedly, the plaintiff was working as a Chowkidar with the defendants and has been prematurely retired as after medical examination he was declared to be medically unfit. Learned R.S.A.No. 1249 of 2009 5 Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that an application had been moved by the plaintiff himself stating therein that he was not in a position to see and was physically weak and generally remained ill. Request was made by the plaintiff that he be retired from service on medical grounds after getting him examined from the Board of Doctors. On the request of the plaintiff, he was got medically examined from the Board of Doctors of PGIMS, Rohtak and he was declared unfit for Government service. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as the plaintiff had been declared medically unfit and had been given premature retirement at his own request. The plaintiff had also failed to establish that the disability suffered by him was due to his service conditions. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 19, 2009 anita