CWP NO. 697 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.697 of 1994 Date of decision:08.07.2011 Manphool Singh....................................................................Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another.........................................Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mrs.Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana --- SABINA,J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant job to the son of the petitioner in accordance with the Haryana Government Instructions No. 16/1/91- 6G.S.T. and additional compensation to the petitioner at par with the drivers who were retired on medical grounds. Petitioner further claimed that the pension and other benefits be released to him. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, in brief, is that the petitiner was working as a Conductor with the Haryana CWP NO. 697 of 1994 2 Roadways. On 09.06.1991, petitioner met with an accident while he was returning back from duty. Petitioner was examined by the Medical Board, Faridabad on 16.7.1993 and was declared unfit for service. Petitioner was retired from service with effect from 20.9.1993 after giving him three months notice. On 24.5.1994, following order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court :- “Petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways. During the course of employment, he met with an accident resulting in amputation of both the legs. On the basis of report of the medical Board, the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 20.9.1993 vide order dated 16.9.1993 (Annexure P/2). In the present writ petition the petitioner has claimed the following three reliefs:- 1. According to Haryana Government Instructions, employment to one of the dependents of the person who is retired prematurely on medial ground. In this case the petitioner is claiming employment for his son on the basis of the said Instructions; 2.Pensionary benefits after his premature retirement; and 3. Serve additional compensation being given to the Drivers of Haryana Roadways/Haryana Government who are retired on medical grounds. As far as the first two reliefs are concerned, it has been stated in the written statement that the matter is under active consideration of the State Government. As far as third relief is concerned, it is the stand of the Haryana CWP NO. 697 of 1994 3 Government that the petitioner being a Conductor and not a Driver, is not entitled to additional compensation. As far as first two reliefs are concerned, in view of the stand of the state Government, we direct the State Government to decide regarding the first two reliefs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. So far as the third relief is concerned, we are of the opinion that it requires consideration, therefore, we admit the writ petition to that extent only.” Thus, at this stage, the point that requires consideration is as to whether petitioner is entitled for additional compensation as was being given to drivers of Haryana Roadways/Haryana Government who were retired on medical grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the drivers, who were retired on medical grounds, were given additional compensation. Petitioner,who was working as a Conductor, had been retired from service on medical grounds and he was also entitled for additional compensation. The act of the respondents in denying additional compensation to the petitioner was discriminatory. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the drivers, who were retired on medical grounds, on account of disability suffered by them due to the duties performed by them could not be treated at par with the Conductors. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The case of the drivers, who are retired/terminated on account of medical grounds, cannot be treated at par with CWP NO. 697 of 1994 4 Conductors, who are retired/terminated on medical grounds. The duties performed by the drivers and conductors are different. The drivers drive the buses in sun, rain, dust and dark hours of night. In this process, they are exposed to the glaring and blazing sun light and beaming and blinding lights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. They are required to strain their eye-sight every moment of the driving. They have to keep a watchful eye on the road for the bumps, bends and slopes and to avoid any kind of accidents. As a result, they may suffer weakening of the eye sight and may have to be retired pre-maturely from service or in some cases they might be terminated. Sometimes the bus driven by the driver meets with an accident for no fault of his and he may suffer disability due to this account. The case of the Conductor, on the other hand, is on a different footing. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner had not suffered any disability while performing his duty. The petitioner was returning back home after performing his duty when he met with an accident . In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the relief of additional compensation claiming parity with the drivers. Hence, no ground for grant of additional compensation is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 06, 2011 arya