1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6256/2007 Ranjeet Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Date of Order :: 10.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Miss Vandana Bhansali, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Chundawat Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondent-Corporation. ... This petition for writ is preferred claiming reliefs as follows: “30. It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction- 30/1. the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner- 30/I/(a) Whatever is payable till he is given retirement; 30/I/(b) a sum of Rs.4 lacs which family has spent in treating him; 30/I/(c) Retiral benefit consequent to retirement and 30/I/(d) interest which is found appropriate on account of delayed payments. 30/I/(e) Respondents be further directed to give Compassionate Appointment to the Petitioner's elder son. 30/II. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be considered proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be given to the Petitioner. 30/III. Cost of the writ petition be allowed to the Petitioner” In brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Sh. Ranjeet Singh was in employment of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he suffered a head injury on 22.9.1999 in an accident. The petitioner is totally incapacitated to discharge any duties, and therefore, through 2 his wife he claimed for retirement from his service and for payment of retiral benefits. This Court by an order dated 1.10.2007 directed the respondent-Corporation to take effective and proper steps to bring the matter pertaining to retirement of the petitioner in finality by getting the petitioner examined by the competent medical board. In pursuant to the order dated 1.10.2007 referred above a medical board consisting of three experts was constituted and that too opined that the petitioner is absolutely incapacitated for further service. In view of the opinion given by the experts it is certain that the petitioner cannot discharge any duties required for the respondent- Corporation. It is also stated at bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also not in position to move any application for retirement and for that reason only this petition for writ is preferred through the petitioner's wife. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider case of the petitioner for placing him under retirement with usual retiral benefits as per norms. The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal