Civil Writ Petition No.9723 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 Sukhdev Gaur & another ...Petitioners 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.C.B.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have approached this court for quashing order dated 9.6.2005, vide which petitioner No.1 was relieved from Government duty as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). The petitioners have also prayed for mandamus to treat petitioner No.1 on duty for giving benefits of all increments, revised pay etc. Petitioner No.1, who was working as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) with respondent No.2 suffered a paralytic attack on 16.3.2005 and was permanently disabled. On 9.6.2005, a Medical Board declared him disabled and he was relieved from service by Senior Medical Officer, P.H.C. Siwan. The petitioners would claim Civil Writ Petition No.9723 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : that petitioner No.1 was entitled to get ex-gratia appointment for his son (petitioner No.2) for which he made an application. Petitioner No.2 thereafter visited the office of Civil Surgeon, who recommended his case to Director Health Services (Maleria), Panchkula. Petitioner No.1, however, neither received any reply nor his son was granted employment. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 had filed CWP No.8893 of 2007, which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide his representation within a period of three months. Still, the petitioners did not receive any decision. The petitioners then sent a legal notice. They claimed that their case was fully covered by ex- gratia employment. Further, petitioner No.1 also claimed benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”). In support, the petitioners have sought to rely upon the decision in the case of Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. P.S.E.B. 2008(2) R.S.J. 82. The State had filed reply. During the course of hearing, Mr.Rathee was required to have instructions as to why the case of petitioner No.1 had not been considered in the light of Section 47 of the Act. Thereafter Mr.Rathee had prayed for time on few occasions. When the case was taken up for hearing on 4.8.2011, this court directed Secretary, Health Department, to file an affidavit whether he has gone through the provisions of Section 47 of the Act and how on the face of these statutory provisions, the respondents had released petitioner No.1 due to his disability. The case was accordingly adjourned on few occasions for filing this affidavit and ultimately this court passed a detailed order on 24.8.2011 expressing serious Civil Writ Petition No.9723 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : concern in the following manner:- “Secretary, Health Department has filed an affidavit, which makes a very disturbing reading. It appears that he has not properly applied himself to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short `the Act'). Had it been otherwise the Secretary could not have stated that whether the provisions are applicable to the persons suffering from serious medical conditions and then would be covered by the Section 47 of the Act or not. Perhaps this averment has been made without going through the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. This Act was legislated in the year 1995. It is sad to notice that a person, who has to implement the provisions of the Act, is still groping in the dark as to how this provision is to operate and how this Section is to be considered. Let this be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary with a request to ensure that all persons responsible and who has to implement the provisions are apprised of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. This should be brought to the notice of all Secretaries as they have basically to apply themselves. Another aspect, which requires notice is that the Secretary has filed an affidavit stating that the case has been brought to his notice for the first time in August, 2011 whereas reply on his behalf was filed long ago. The Civil Writ Petition No.9723 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : Secretary is impleaded as a party-respondent. It had earlier been noticed that though impleaded as a party, but the Secretaries hardly bother to personally see the case. Time and again, this court has expressed itself that wherever the Secretary is impleaded as a party, reply must be filed by him. Still no one has cared to comply with the requirement. The Chief Secretary is once again requested to ensure compliance of this requirement. Let the Chief Secretary file an affidavit that all the head of the department and secretaries of the department have been apprised about this requirement and asked to ensure compliance. Reply should be filed by a person who is impleaded as a party.” Chief Secretary has now filed an affidavit indicating that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act has been extended to petitioner No.1. The Chief Secretary has also elaborately stated that the State Government has issued instructions dated 19.9.2011 to bring to the notice of all the Financial Commissioners & Principal Secretaries to Government Haryana and all the Heads of Departments and other concerned for its compliance of provisions of Section 47 of the Act. The Chief Secretary has also stated on affidavit that the instructions have also been issued on 22.1.2009 directing all the Financial Commissioners and Administrative Secretaries, Heads of Departments, Commissioners, Ambala, Hisar, Rohtak and Gurgaon Divisions and all the Deputy Commissioners and Sub Divisional Officers (C ) in the State of Haryana to ensure that the officers concerned should themselves file reply in their official capacity when Civil Writ Petition No.9723 of 2009 (O&M) : 5 : they are impleaded as a party in the case concerned and not through their officers. The direction further provides that they must ensure that the replies are properly prepared so that State's interest does not suffer. It is further mentioned that violation of these instructions would be viewed seriously by the Government. Further instructions were issued in this regard on 17.12.2010, where the State Government had taken a serious view of this lapse and to avoid any kind of delay in such matters, it was decided that all Court cases in which Government is a party be immediately brought to the notice of Administrative Secretaries/ Heads of Departments by the officer/official receiving it and further that the Administrative Secretaries/Heads of Departments should ensure that the requisite action as directed/decided by the court, are complied with in a time bound manner. Copies of these instructions have also been annexed with the affidavit. In view of the above explained position, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. September 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE