IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1009 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2011 Ramesh Chander ...Appellant versus Haryana State Federation of Co-opearative Sugar Mills Ltd and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the respondents *** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause X of Letters Patent is directed against order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8827 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. Precisely, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are being noticed as under:- The writ petitioner-appellant is an employee of the Haryana State Federation of Co-opearative Sugar Mills Ltd (for brevity 'respondent- Corporation'). He was working as a helper. However, in the year 2001, he suffered injuries which resulted in disability. It is alleged that steel rod has been placed inside the right ankle joint of the writ petitioner-appellant and on account of this injury/disability, he was unable to perform the duties of helper which involved strenuous nature of job. The writ petitioner-appellant accordingly requested the respondent-Corporation for light duty. Consequently, he was allotted the duty of 'Cane Kamdar' at Kharar. The main grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is that on 02.04.2011, when he went to join his duty after a long period of treatment and bed rest, he was not allowed to join as Cane Kamdar but was forced to work as “helper”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 has failed to consider that the writ petitioner-appellant had met with an accident and could not do the strenuous duty In the present appeal, respondents have filed reply in which they have stated that the writ petitioner-appellant was never appointed Cane Kamdar rather he was appointed as Helper and on account of 10% disability, he has been given light duty on gate for entering the goods received/dispatched etc. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He is satisfied with this duty. Keeping in view the disability suffered by the petitioner and the statement of the respondent that the writ petitioner-appellant has been given light duty on gate for entering the goods received/dispatched etc, we dispose of this appeal by giving a direction to the respondent-Corporation to post the writ-petitioner at the gate duty or give him any other light duty where he has not to do a job involving physical exercise. We have also been informed by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the writ petitioner has also filed a civil suit against the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner- appellant undertakes to withdraw the said suit. With these directions, this appeal stands disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE September 19, 2011 G.Arora