Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1230 (PAT)

Kanchan Lata v. Union Of India

2003-12-01

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who was engaged in the active services had suffered fracture in the femur and after finding that she had become unfit for active duties was discharged for invalid pension. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1565 of 2002 with a direction that she was medically fit and the order of discharging her on invalid pension deserves to be quashed. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1565 of 2002 by its order dated 4.2.2002 dismissed the writ application. The petitioner still dissatisfied filed L.P.A. No. 337 of 2002, which was decided on 11.3.2002. A Division Bench of this Court directed that present was a fit case where the respondent authorities should reexamine the appellant by the Medical Board and if she is found fit as asserted by her then her case should be reconsidered otherwise the order passed earlier will remain in force. 3. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was medically examined and in accordance with the reports annexed with the counter her order of discharge on invalid pension was maintained. It appears that being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner again came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 638 of 2003, the said writ application was withdrawn on 3.2.2003 with a liberty to approach the superior authorities. The order contained in C.W.J.C. No. 638 of 2003 by no stretch of imagination can be deemed to be a direction either to the petitioner or the authority. The petitioner on his own volition withdrew the writ application seeking the liberty to make a representation to the superior authority. 4. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner is fit for the light duty and as such the orders discharging her on invalid pension deserve to be quashed. 5. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kunal Singh vs. Union of India 2003 (4) SCC 524 to submit that the persons with disabilities are entitled to equal opportunity and in a case where a particular person can not be taken in the active duty either the office work should be assigned or supernumerary post should be created for such person. 6. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare perusal and fair understanding of the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 337/2002 would make it clear that the assertion of the petitioner was that she is fit for active duty and the question of assigning any light work was never raised by the petitioner. The respondents have also submitted that the question that the petitioner is entitled to the light work or light duty was not raised in earlier petitions therefore the petitioner is stopped from raising these questions. 7. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records including the judgment of the Supreme Court. 8. In the matter of Kunal Singh (supra) Section 47 and other substantive section of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 were under consideration. The Supreme Court observed that the provisions contained under Sections 47 and 72 are mandatory in nature and the protection available to an employee under Section 47 acquiring disability during his service can not be denied on the ground that he had been granted invalid pension under Rule 38 CCS Pension Rules. The Supreme Court in the said matter also observed that in such cases lighter duties can be given to the persons suffering from disability. In the opinion of this Court the benefit under the said judgment can not be given to the petitioner because on an earlier occasion her writ application was dismissed and the order discharging her on invalid pension was upheld by the High Court. The said order attained finality except the little modification directed by the LP.A. Court in L.P.A. No. 337 of 2002. The only direction issued against the respondents was that if on re-medical examination the petitioner is found fit as asserted by her only then her case be reconsidered. This Court had in unambiguous terms directed that otherwise the orders passed earlier will remain in force. The words, "otherwise the orders passed earlier will remain in force", may relate to the earlier order passed by the authority or passed by the learned Single Judge. In either of the case of order discharging the petitioner on invalid pension or the order dismissing the writ application were to stand under such circumstances in line of the judgment of the Division Bench. In either of the case of order discharging the petitioner on invalid pension or the order dismissing the writ application were to stand under such circumstances in line of the judgment of the Division Bench. It is not possible for me sitting single to go beyond the orders passed by the Letters Patent Court. The writ application is dismissed.