dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6973 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6973 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6973 OF 2008 Shri M.P. Narvekar ... Petitioner Vs. The Collector, Mumbai Suburban District Bandra, Mumbai. ... Respondent. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 20th March, 2009. : 20th March, 2009. : 20th March, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner, who is disabled person, is aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Welfare of Persons with Diability, Maharashtra State, Pune, as contemplated and appointed under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995f ("the Act"). This Act and specifically Section 47 provides and give equal protection also to the persons who became disabled during the employment. 2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has not granted the salary for the period 1995 to 2003 and only granted some pensionary benefits to the petitioner and not mentioned the exact period of ( 2 ) pension benefits. A statement is made at the bar that even as per this impugned order, the respondents have not even granted the pension as prayed for by the petitioner in his application. 3. To the petition, an affidavit in reply dated 21.11.2008 is filed whereby a number of additional reasons and documents are relied to support the impugned order. It is very clear from the reply itself that those averments and those reasonings are not the part of the impugned order. This, in my view, itself is sufficient reason to quash and set aside the impugned order. It is necessary that full and detail reason should be given to support the impugned order and basically in a case like this, when admittedly, the petitioner who is disabled and unable to attend the duty since 1995 till the date of his retirement. 4. Though it is observed that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as contemplated under the Act, but while passing the order, no detailed reasons are given and on the contrary it is observed that the petitioner failed to to give sufficient reasons why he could not attend the duty during the period 1995 to 2003. There are applications on record which he had submitted for grant of leave, but those applications, ( 3 ) according to the respondent, were not as per the prescribed form. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned Department or the respondent’s Authority ought to have given detailed reasons whether for that reason itself such application of leave can be rejected and basically when a person who is disabled and unwell and unable to join the service for the reasons recorded in his applications. There is nothing on record to show that any departmental action or inquiry was conducted before passing such order of depriving his salary or such other service benefits. This practically amounts to not granting any relief to the disabled person as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act. 5. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.01.2008 is quashed and set aside. The respondent’s Authority is directed to rehear & dispose of the petitioner’s application within two months from today. 6. The pension which the petitioner is receiving pursuant to the impugned order need not be refunded, if already paid, and the respondent/Authority is directed to pay the pension at least as per the impugned order. ( 4 ) 7. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the issues. The Commissioner is expected to re-consider the applications of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. It is noted that the Commissioner, who passed the impugned order is not made party, but the respondent, who is contested this matter and even filed the detailed affidavit referring to all those documents which have been considered by the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order and supported the order. I am not therefore inclined to accept this technicality at this stage. Therefore, the Commissioner as recorded above under the Act, to hear the matter as directed above and pass appropriate order accordingly. . No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)