Civil Writ Petition No.14871 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 15, 2009 Mahipal Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable in Police Department, suffered a paralytic attack during April, 2003. This attack has left him with disability that he cannot perform the functions of his duties/job. He accordingly wrote to Chief Medical Officer stating that he was unable to perform the duties. He was referred to the Medical Board for medical examination. Subsequently, Civil Writ Petition No.14871 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 : he was examined by the doctor during June, 2003 and was found to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the department. The petitioner complains that he was assured that if he seeks voluntary retirement, then his retiral benefits on the basis of medical report will be considered. He further says that he was further assured that case for compassionate appointment of his son would also be considered by the respondents. The petitioner obviously is keen to see that his son is adjusted on some job so that the family can sustain and earn their livelihood. The petitioner avers that he had agreed to make an application seeking retirement on the basis of this understanding. As per the petitioner, he was otherwise not interested in seeking voluntary retirement. The petitioner though has been granted retirement pension, but is granted no pension on account of disability suffered by him in the course of his duty. The petitioner, thus, is receiving a monthly pension only. He has filed the present writ petition seeking various relief including the grant of pension for the disability suffered by him. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner is given benefit of 26 years, 4 months and 8 days of service for the purpose of pension, though he has to his credit only 21 years, 4 months and 8 days in service. To deny the disability pension, it is stated that the petitioner has not sought the said pension on the basis of a report given by PGIMS, Rohtak and rather he had submitted application for his voluntarily retirement on 5.11.2003. The prayer of the petitioner in this regard has been declined. The averment made by the petitioner that he had not voluntary signed on the application seeking voluntary retirement, may Civil Writ Petition No.14871 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 : need to be substantiated. Ordinarily a writ court may not be in a competent position to decide/adjudicate these disputed questions of facts, yet keeping in view the medical condition of the petitioner, it would not be fair and appropriate to relegate him to some other alternative remedy. No person, who has suffered disability in the course of employment would ask to forgo the compensation to which he is legally entitled to. The petitioner is being denied disability pension on the ground that he had sought voluntary retirement. Either the petitioner did not know the consequences of seeking voluntary retirement or he did so on being made to understand that his son would be offered appointment. The reason advanced by the petitioner that he had signed the application seeking voluntary retirement thinking that his son shall be given a job seems plausible. The petitioner can not be made to suffer on account of some unwise decision or discretion exercised by him even it had voluntarily done so to seek voluntary retirement. The stand taken by the respondents that petitioner had not sought disability pension on the basis of a medical report would not sound fair, just and reasonable. Respondents apparently are seen avoiding their liability to pay disability pension. The act of the petitioner in seeking voluntary retirement to deny him disability pension is to be ignored, this being not voluntary but being forced by the circumstances in which the petitioner was placed. The case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension on account of disability suffered by him in the course of his employment would require consideration. Fairness would demand so and accordingly I direct the respondents to do so. Civil Writ Petition No.14871 of 2007 (O&M) : 4 : The petitioner is entitled to the grant of disability pension which be released to him within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner may also file a representation before the respondents for considering the case of his son for employment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. July 15, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE