Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 8.12.2005 passed by opposite party no. 3. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground of non application of mind, non availability of sufficient material before the Screening Committee and pre-determination on the authority of the opposite parties to oust the petitioner from the department.3. Affidavits have been exchanged and the record has also been produced.4. The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of “Lascar” on 9.9.1975. It is a post which carries the work of cleaning the rifle, looking after the work of store and supply of ration in the N.C.C Camp. This is supposedly a heavy duty job. The petitioner was keeping indifferent health. He developed brain tumorýÿ and underwent treatment at K.G.M.C., Lucknow from 2.6.2002 to 7.4.2003. He was also advised bed rest till 27.2.2005. In between, the petitioner suffered paralysis on 1.12.2004. The petitioner was admitted in the National Hospital, at Tikaitrai Talab, Mohaan Road, Lucknow. On 25.6.2005 the petitioner moved an application to the opposite parties that since he has suffered brain tumor and has been visited paralysis attack, hence he may be allowed to do some light duty instead of the duty of a Lascar. The petitioner says that instead of giving this duty, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the Screening Committee. The report of the Screening Committee, has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 to 3, as annexure SA-1. The finding of Screening Committee is being reproduced as under :-“Sri S.D. Misra :- The individual has always been a disciplinary case and has himself stated that he is unable to perform the duties of Lascar. The individual has been told to produce medical certificate to prove his allignment, which he has not done. Based on his service record and various medical claims and petitions forwarded by the individual. It is found that individual is unfit to perform duties of Lascar after attaining 50 years of age and recommended for compulsory retirement as per U.P. Government order 13/48/85- Karmik-1 dated 26 Oct.1985 and NCC Directorate (UP & UA) letter No. 653/PF/Pers/(Ga) dated 08 Apr. 1987.”5. It is found that individual is unfit to perform duties of Lascar after attaining 50 years of age and recommended for compulsory retirement as per U.P. Government order 13/48/85- Karmik-1 dated 26 Oct.1985 and NCC Directorate (UP & UA) letter No. 653/PF/Pers/(Ga) dated 08 Apr. 1987.”5. A perusal of the report of the Screening Committee will demonstrate that two reasons are shown in the Screening Committee, which have weighed on the mind of the officers taking decision regarding the petitioner. The first ground is that the petitioner has himself moved an application to the effect that he is unable to work on the post of Lascar, and secondly; that he is indisciplined employee and has absented himself without the permission. Moreover, he has not submitted his medical report, on the basis of which he claims light duty.6. In the counter- affidavit, it has been stated in para-10, that the petitioner on his request, was given light duty for five years. This is strange submission because the petitioner was compulsorily retired in the year 2005, and the application, itself was made in the year 2005. In view of this situation, the opposite parties could not have allowed his application for light duty. Moreover, in the report of the Screening Committee, there is no mention that after being given light duty by the opposite parties, the petitioner has not been able to perform light duties. The Screening Committee still says that he is unable to perform the duties of Lascar; meaning thereby that on the date of meeting of the Screening Committee, the petitioner was discharging the work of Lascar and his application was never considered by the opposite parties. In para-8 and 9 of the counter- affidavit filed by Lt. Col. Siddharth, it has been stated that certain medical bills for reimbursement has been allowed by the department and further his medical treatment at K.G.M.C., Lucknow is not disputed.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once medical reimbursement is admitted, the opposite parties are debarred from taking a plea that the medical certificate was not placed before them on their demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once medical reimbursement is admitted, the opposite parties are debarred from taking a plea that the medical certificate was not placed before them on their demand. The mere fact that the medical reimbursement was made to the petitioner time and again goes to show that the opposite parties were well aware about the illness of the petitioner and the treatment was being continued at K.G.M.C., Lucknow and other medical units.ýÿ The petitioner has also produced a certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, which shows that he is 70% handicapped. Further the details of the absence, which has been annexed with the chart shows that the petitioner has absented most of times for two or three days, which can be counted as casual leaves. No proper sanction was expected from the authorities in case when the person is suffering from brain tumor. It is a kind of ailment, which can land a person in a difficult situation, where the performance of daily routine and the burden of Govt. duty, cannot be carried out easily. In such a situation, the stand of the opposite parties that the petitioner is indisciplined employee and remained absent without sanctioning of leave, does not appeal to the conscience of this Court.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of the Act known as ‘The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Para- 47(1) of the said Act, is being quoted below :-’47. No discrimination in Government employment — ( 1 ) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service.Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits :Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier’.9. A perusal of this Act goes to show that it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to deal with the persons who are physically handicapped and with utmost care and compassion. A perusal of this Act goes to show that it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to deal with the persons who are physically handicapped and with utmost care and compassion. It has been clearly provided that in case a handicapped person makes an application for light duties, then it has to be looked into by the opposite parties and in case no light duty is available, and it is not possible to give him light duties, then the supernumerary post has to be created for the purpose and the person has to be adjusted on that post. In the present case, the application moved by the petitioner for providing him light duties, is admitted by the Screening Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the application made by the petitioner, instead of being looked into compassionately by the opposite parties, it has been misinterpreted and used against the petitioner, to turn the table upon him. This is deliberate act on the part of the opposite parties to oust the petitioner from service on the pretext that he himself does not want to work on the post.10. After going through the record and the argument of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court reaches to definite conclusion that there was non-application of mind by the Screening Committee. Further, there was not sufficient material before the Screening Committee to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner is indisciplined employee. Moreover, the petitioner’s application under the said Act, was not looked into by the opposite parties and instead of creating a supernumerary post, as directed under the Act, the opposite parties found it easy to retire the petitioner compulsorily causing great prejudice to him and to his family.11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order/ notice dated 8.12.2005 passed by opposite party no. 3 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with 50% back wages.(Petition allowed)_____________