JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. All the petitioners were working as drivers/conductors in the respondent no.1/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (“UTC”). While on service due to health reasons, they were declared unfit for the posts which they were holding. They were assigned some other work, on which they continued. But, suddenly on 01.09.2022, the UTC directed that all the drivers/conductors should work on the post at which they were appointed. They should not be assigned any other duties. On 09.09.2022 at the strength of Rule 37 of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 2015 (“the 2015 Rules”), the UTC informed all its Divisional Managers that all the drivers/conductors, except those who sustained injury while on duty, be compulsorily retired. Pursuant to it, all the petitioners were given three months’ notice with the directions that they shall be deemed to be compulsorily retired on the date specified in the respective notice. 4. The challenge in these petitions is made to the communication dated 09.09.2022 of the UTC, by which directions were issued to the Divisional Managers to compulsory retire the drivers, who are unfit to drive except those drivers, who sustained injuries while on duty. The challenge has also been made to the communication dated 19.09.2022/21.09.2022/22.09.2022/26.09.2022/03.10.2022 of the UTC by which the petitioners were given three months’ notice with an intimation that they shall be deemed to be compulsorily retired on future dates as specified in these communications. In the following writ petitions, the petitioners have also challenged the order by which they have been compulsorily retired:- SL No. Case Number Order by which compulsorily retired. 1. WPSS No. 2494 of 2022, Daleep Kumar Sharma Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others 21.12.2022 2. WPSS No. 3 of 2023, Pitamber Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others 21.12.2022 3. WPSS No.16 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 22.12.2022 4. WPSS No.67 of 2023, Gurumukh Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 22.12.2022 5. WPSS No. 68 of 2023, Vishesh Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 20.12.2022 6. WPSS No.78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. WPSS No.16 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 22.12.2022 4. WPSS No.67 of 2023, Gurumukh Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 22.12.2022 5. WPSS No. 68 of 2023, Vishesh Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 20.12.2022 6. WPSS No.78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 20.12.2022 7. WPSS No.86 of 2023, Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 8. WPSS No.87 of 2023, Ravikant Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 9. WPSS No.88 of 2023, Ram Asray Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 10. WPSS No.89 of 2023, Satish Kumar Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 26.12.2022 11. WPSS No.101 of 2023, Alok Williams Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand Dehradun and others 23.12.2022 12. WPSS No.102 of 2023, Amod Sharma Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 13. WPSS No.146 of 2023, Surendra Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 10.01.2023 14. WPSS No.147 of 2023, Malkeet Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 10.01.2023 15. WPSS No.635 of 2023, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 23.12.2022 5. It has been the case of the petitioners that due to health reasons they became incapable to perform the duties on which they were appointed. Therefore, having considered their health conditions/medical certificates, the UTC assigned them other duties, on which they have been working regularly to the satisfaction of all the officers; they have been working with commitment. 6. The UTC has filed its counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. The impugned orders have been supported on the grounds that Rule 37 of the 2015 Rules, categorically empowers the UTC to take action of compulsorily retiring a person after serving a notice. Pursuant to which, it is the stand of the UTC that 71 employees were given a notices. Many of them did make a representation which was considered in the meeting held on 19.12.2022, in which four notices were withdrawn. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Pursuant to which, it is the stand of the UTC that 71 employees were given a notices. Many of them did make a representation which was considered in the meeting held on 19.12.2022, in which four notices were withdrawn. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners raised the following points:- (i) The classification between employees based on injury sustained while on duty and injury sustained while off duty is not intelligible differentia. It is discriminatory and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The differentiation which has been made while compulsorily retiring the petitioners has no nexus with the object, which the UTC supposedly wanted to achieve. (iii) The petitioners have been incapacitated to work as drivers/conductors due to injury sustained while in service. They were physically fit when they joined the services. Therefore, the incapability which they incurred is attributable to the service conditions. It requires protection. (iv) Rule 37 of the 2015 Rules has been wrongly applied. The power to compulsorily retire, does not permit the UTC to exercise such power arbitrarily. (v) The cases of petitioners have not been examined by any Review Committee which ought to have been constituted if at all action under Section 37 of the 2015 Rules were to be taken. (vi) The satisfaction to compulsorily retire ought to have been made on the basis of an objective assessment of the service conditions/health conditions of the petitioners, which has not been done. (vii) Some of the petitioners did sustain injuries while on duty despite that they have been compulsorily retired. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notices by which the petitioners have been informed that after three months they shall be compulsorily retired is bad in the eyes of law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the UTC would submit that the petitioners were appointed as drivers/conductors, but they were not performing their duties on the ground of their in-capabilities. Therefore, a decision was taken to compulsory retire them under Rule 37 of the 2015 Rules. Accordingly, they were served a notice. It is argued that some of the employees did make representations and after considering their representations four such notices were withdrawn. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy, the case of each of the petitioners needs to be examined. Accordingly, they were served a notice. It is argued that some of the employees did make representations and after considering their representations four such notices were withdrawn. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy, the case of each of the petitioners needs to be examined. The detail of each of the petitioners is as follows:- SL No. Writ Petition No. and title Position held by the petitioners Date till when he worked on the post Medical Certificate Injury sustained while On Duty or Off Duty Alternate Work that was assigned 1. WPSS No. 2338 of 2022, Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others Driver 25.01.2013 The disability is not given, but as per a communication, he has been declared unfit to drive any vehicle (bye pass surgery conducted in the year 2017), (Annexure 5 and 6) Heart disease in 2017 Preparing bills/maintenance 2. WPSS No. 2174 of 2022, Suresh Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others Driver 29.07.2015 Medical Board Report; Post traumatic optic atrophy in right eye with complete loss in right eye. He is unfit to drive (Annexure 5 Disability Certificate) Not clear. Eye Problem since 2015 Other office related work; 3. WPSS No. 2179 of 2022, Harshmohan Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Dehradun and others Driver 12.05.2021 Medical Board Report; Unfit to heavy duty and driving (Annexure 5) Not clear. Intestine Cancer Other official work; 4. WPSS No. 2180 of 2022, Lal Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Through its Managing Director Dehradun and others Conductor 05.08.2017 Medical Board Report; Right Eye Central Opacity with Left Eye Eviscerated with no perception of Light. He is visually handicapped 40% (Annexure 5) Not clear. Visually handicapped-40% Other office related work; Group D 5. WPSS No. 2182 of 2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Dehradun and others Driver 22.03.2017 Medical Board Report; Angioplasty; Not fit for driving; (Annexure 5) Not clear. Heart disease Other official work 6. WPSS No. 2184 of 2022, Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Dehradun and others Driver 18.06.2014 Medical Board Report; Severe impairment of vision of right eye due to coreo-retinel (Annexure 5) Not clear. Eye problem Other Official Work 7. WPSS No. 2186 of 2022 Maya Ram Bhatt Vs. Heart disease Other official work 6. WPSS No. 2184 of 2022, Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Dehradun and others Driver 18.06.2014 Medical Board Report; Severe impairment of vision of right eye due to coreo-retinel (Annexure 5) Not clear. Eye problem Other Official Work 7. WPSS No. 2186 of 2022 Maya Ram Bhatt Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Dehradun and others Driver 16.12.2001 Medical Board Report; Post traumatic atrophy of lower limb; disability 40%. (Annexure- 5) Not clear Other Official Work 8. WPSS No. 2211 of 2022, Phoola Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its General Manager and another Driver 2007 Due to accident sustained some injuries; In WPSS 995 of 2008 on 04.03.2011 direction given to assign other work to the petitioner On duty Accident Clerk 9. WPSS No. 2212 of 2022, Dhan Singh Vs. The Secretary State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others Driver 14.09.2019 Medical Certificate; Collar Bone Fracture (Annexure 2) On duty Peon 10. WPSS No. 2258 of 2022, Subhash Chandra Badola Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor 01.10.2016 Medical Board Report; Cervical/Lumbar spondylitis (Annexure 3) On duty Other official work 11. WPSS No. 2259 of 2022, Jagmohan Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 25.05.1995 Medical Board Report; Knee Injury (Annexure 4) On duty Other Official Work 12. WPSS No. 2260 of 2022, Rajendra Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 19.10.1997 Medical Officer Communication; Accidental Injury (Annexure 4) On duty Other official work 13. WPSS No. 2280 of 2022, Jagjeet Singh and others Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others (i) Jagjeet Singh (ii) Satnam Singh (iii) Sukhdev Singh 1. Driver 2. Driver 3. Driver 2004 2003 2011 Concession Certificate; Right leg amputation; 80% Disability (Annexure 2) Medical Board Report; Hip bone injury (Annexure 3) No document; Hip Fracture On Duty; While going to depot; On Duty On Duty Other official work Other official work Other official work 14. WPSS No. 2298 of 2022, Bhajan Singh and another Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others (i) Bhajan Singh (ii) Anil Kumar Mishra Driver Conductor 2022 16.06.2021 Medical Board Certificate; Hip bone injury Medical Board Certificate; AIDS (Annexure 3), Not clear; Hip Injury On duty accident; Subsequently AIDS Other official work Other official work 15. WPSS No. 2306 of 2022, Jitendra Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others (i) Bhajan Singh (ii) Anil Kumar Mishra Driver Conductor 2022 16.06.2021 Medical Board Certificate; Hip bone injury Medical Board Certificate; AIDS (Annexure 3), Not clear; Hip Injury On duty accident; Subsequently AIDS Other official work Other official work 15. WPSS No. 2306 of 2022, Jitendra Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others Driver 2000 Medical Board Certificate; Damaged vision of left eye (Annexure 5) On duty Other work 16. WPSS No. 2315 of 2022, Brij Lal Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others Driver 16.01.2005 No Medical Report; Poisonous insect cut on left eye; Absence from duty On duty; Insect bite Other official work 17. WPSS No. 2340 of 2022, Keshav Dutt Joshi Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Dehradun and others Driver 17.07.2018 Medical Report; FUC of obstructive Sleep apnea (Annexure 5) Not clear; Sleep apnea Other official work 18. WPSS No. 2344 of 2022 Munabbar Ali Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 09.12.2019 Medical Board Report; AMT Vertigo and Poly Neurological Tremor Not clear; Vertigo Other official work 19. WPSS No. 2348 of 2022, Jai Pal Singh Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 2018 Heart attack; Now fitness certificate to join duties of driver for day time only. (Annexure 6 and 8) Not clear; Now fit Other official work 20. WPSS No. 2349 of 2022, Ram Surat Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its General Manager and another Driver 15/16.08. 1998 Medical Board Report; Ecliptic fits On duty; Injured during dacoity Other duty 21. WPSS No. 2353 of 2022, Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 2015 Medical Board Report; Seizure disorder (Annexure 5) Not clear; Ecilepsy Other official work 22. WPSS No. 2382 of 2022, Mohan Lal Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another Driver 2008 Medical Board Report; Defective Vision (Annexure 2) Not clear; Eye problem Other official work 23. WPSS No. 2386 of 2022, Rajendra Kumar Arya and another Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others (i) Rajendra Kumar Arya Driver 2016 No medical certificate; Suffered injury in left leg due to accident and rod was fixed On duty Other duties (ii) Jagmohan Driver 2015 Medical Board Report; Slip Disc problem Medical Certificate, (Annexure 2) On duty Other duties 24. WPSS No. 2407 of 2022, Bhagwan Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and others (i) Rajendra Kumar Arya Driver 2016 No medical certificate; Suffered injury in left leg due to accident and rod was fixed On duty Other duties (ii) Jagmohan Driver 2015 Medical Board Report; Slip Disc problem Medical Certificate, (Annexure 2) On duty Other duties 24. WPSS No. 2407 of 2022, Bhagwan Singh Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor 02.02.2018 Medical Board Certificate/Report; Brain Haemorrhage Medical certificate (Annexure 4) On duty Other official work 25. WPSS No. 2467 of 2022, Harjindar Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 2021 Medical Board Report; Cataract; Medical Certificate (Annexure 3) Not clear; Cataract Other official work 26. WPSS No. 2469 of 2022, Charan Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 28.07.2017 Medical Board Report; Old L1 Vertiberal Fracture without Neurological deficit; (Annexure 1) On duty Other official work 27. WPSS No. 2476 of 2022, Sirazuddin Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 2015 No medical certificate; Back problem Not clear; Back Problem Other official work 28. WPSS No. 2494 of 2022, Daleep Kumar Sharma Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others Driver 2015 A communication of Doctor; Eyesight blurred On duty; Eye problem Retired on 21.12.2022 29. WPSS No. 3 of 2023, Pitamber Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others Driver 21.01.2018 Medical Board Report; Brain hemorrhage; ( Annexure 4) Not clear; Brain Haemorrhage Retired on 21.12.2022 30. WPSS No. 16 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 2018 Medical Board Report; Grade III obesity (Annexure 3) Not clear; Obesity Retired on 22.12.2022 31. WPSS No. 67 of 2023, Gurumukh Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor 16.10.2019 Medical Board Report; Fracture of both bone left leg with left ulna (Annexure 2) On duty; Leg fracture Retired on 22.12.2022 32. WPSS No. 68 of 2023, Vishesh Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor 19.03.2014 Medical Board Report; Diabetes with coronary artillery/heart problem (Annexure 3) On duty; Heart problem Retired on 20.12.2022 33. WPSS No. 78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor Injured on duty; Now fitness certificate issued (Annexure 2) On duty Retired on 20.12.2022 34. WPSS No. 86 of 2023, Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs. WPSS No. 78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Conductor Injured on duty; Now fitness certificate issued (Annexure 2) On duty Retired on 20.12.2022 34. WPSS No. 86 of 2023, Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others Driver 17.04.2020 Medical Board Report; Medical treatment of heart (Annexure 1) Not clear; Heart disease Retired on 23.12.2022 35. WPSS No. 87 of 2023, Ravikant Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others Conductor 30.01.2022 Medical Board Report; Seizure Disorder (Annexure 3) On duty; Cerebral fits Retired on 23.12.2022 36 WPSS No. 88 of 2023, Ram Asray Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others Conductor 22.11.2021 Medical Board Report; Right Hip bone Injury (Annexure 2) On duty Retired on 23.12.2022 37 WPSS No. 89 of 2023, Satish Kumar Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others, Conductor 2012 Chief Medical Officer Communication; Cervical Spondylitis (Annexure 2) Not clear; Spondylitis Retired on 26.12.2022 38 WPSS No. 101 of 2023, Alok Williams Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand Dehradun and others Conductor 14.07.2022 Medical Board Report; Head Injury (Annexure 1); Fitness certificate issued (Annexure 5) On duty; Head injury Retired on 23.12.2022 39. WPSS No. 102 of 2023, Amod Sharma Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others Driver 2004 Medical Board Report; Injury in backbone (Annexure 2) Not clear; Back problem Retired on 23.12.2022 40 WPSS No. 146 of 2023, Surendra Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 2019 He was declared fit for duties later as driver Medical Board Report; Cataract; Now fitness Certificate (Annexure 7) Not clear; Cataract Retired on 10.01.2023 41. WPSS No. 147 of 2023, Malkeet Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 2022 Medical Board Report; Cataract (Annexure 3); Now fitness Certificate issued (Annexure 9) Not clear; Cataract Retired on 10.01.2023 42. WPSS No. 635 of 2023, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 2018 Eye Deficiency; No medical certificate Not clear; Eye problem Retired on 23.12.2022 12. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another Driver 2022 Medical Board Report; Cataract (Annexure 3); Now fitness Certificate issued (Annexure 9) Not clear; Cataract Retired on 10.01.2023 42. WPSS No. 635 of 2023, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others Driver 2018 Eye Deficiency; No medical certificate Not clear; Eye problem Retired on 23.12.2022 12. The communication dated 09.09.2022 of the respondent no.1 UTC had made the distinction between the drivers/conductors, who are incapacitated to work on the position on which they were appointed while on duty and it had directed that such drivers/conductors should not be compulsorily retired. But the petitioners at SL Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (2), 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38 in the above table as made at para 11 of this judgment reveals that they have sustained injuries while on duty. Despite that they were served with the notices of compulsorily retirement. Their notices for compulsory retirement are bad for that reason alone. 13. On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that the action of compulsory retiring the petitioners is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the petitioners have been discriminated. This argument has been made challenging distinction made for compulsory retirement on the basis of injuries sustained during on duty or injuries sustained while off duty. It is argued that this discrimination is bad. What is argued is that this distinction is arbitrary discrimination. The distinction between groups of drivers/conductors, who are unable to hold the post due to injury sustained by them makes a class and the distinction between them should have cleared the test of intelligible differentia, which is not done in the instant case. 14. The classification is to founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group and secondly the differentia must have a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The question is whether the drivers/conductors, who sustained injuries, while on duty and the drivers/conductors, who sustained injuries, while off duty is an intelligible differentia and secondly whether this differentiation has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 15. In the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and others Vs. The question is whether the drivers/conductors, who sustained injuries, while on duty and the drivers/conductors, who sustained injuries, while off duty is an intelligible differentia and secondly whether this differentiation has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 15. In the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 399 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that classification between in-service employees and retirees, is legal, valid and reasonable classification and if certain benefits are provided to in-service employees and those benefits have not been extended to retired employees, it cannot be successfully challenged that there is discrimination which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 16. In the case of Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and connected matters, (2013) 2 SCC 772 , the classification was made between the State Government employees in respect of component of “dearness allowance”. By the Government Order, in that case pensionary benefits of the employees retiring on or after 01.06.1988 were required to be computed by adding dearness allowance as dearness pay at a fixed percentage. By this scheme, the employees who had retired on or after 01.06.1988 were put to disadvantageous position. While examining this differentiation and object sought to be achieved, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that this classification is not valid. In para 35 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “35. In the present context it needs to be kept in mind that “dearness allowance” is paid to government employees keeping in mind the All India Consumer Price Index. Inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced by paying “dearness allowance” to government employees. When a State Government chooses to treat “dearness allowance” as “dearness pay”, the objective remains the same i.e. inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced for retired employees by giving them the benefit of “dearness pay”. Since the component of inflation similarly affects all employees and all pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into service or retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of “dearness pay” to remedy the malady of inflation. Since the component of inflation similarly affects all employees and all pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into service or retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of “dearness pay” to remedy the malady of inflation. Just like the date of entry into service (for serving employees) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the “dearness allowance” to be extended to serving employees, because the same has no relevance to the object sought to be achieved. Likewise, the date of retirement (for pensioners) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the “dearness pay” to be extended to retired employees. Truthfully, it may be difficult to imagine a valid basis of classification for remedying the malaise of inflation. In the absence of any objective, projected in this case, the question of examining the reasonableness to the object sought to be achieved simply does not arise. Our straying into this expressed realm of imagination, was occasioned by the fact, that the pleadings filed on behalf of the State Government, do not reveal any reason for the classification which is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant appeal.” 17. In the case of Anand Bihari and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through its Managing Director and another, (1991)1 SCC 731 various drivers were put to medical examination. Their eyesight was not fit for driving. Therefore, after notice their services were terminated. It was challenged. In the case of Anand Bihari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 9 as follows:- “9. Although the order of termination of service per se cannot be faulted on the ground of the breach of the Act, the important question that still remains to be considered is whether in the circumstances of the case and against the background of the relevant provisions of our Constitution, it can be said that the action of the Corporation is proper, equitable and justified. The facts on record show that all the workmen have put in service with the Corporation for long periods. All of them are above 40 years of age. Their superannuation age is 58 years. There is no dispute that they developed a weak or sub-normal eyesight or lost their required vision on account of their occupation as drivers in the Corporation. All of them are above 40 years of age. Their superannuation age is 58 years. There is no dispute that they developed a weak or sub-normal eyesight or lost their required vision on account of their occupation as drivers in the Corporation. As is commonly known, the drivers of the buses run by the Corporation such as the present one, have to drive the heavy motor vehicles in sun, rain, dust and dark hours of night. In the process, they are exposed to the glaring and blazing sunlight and beaming and blinding lights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. They are required to strain their eyesight every moment of the driving, keeping a watchful eye on the road for the bumps, bends and slopes, and to avoid all kinds of obstacles on the way. It is this constant straining of eyes on the road which takes its inevitable toll of the vision. The very fact that in a short period, the Corporation had to terminate the services of no less than 30 drivers who are before us shows the extent of the occupational hazard to which the drivers of the Corporation are exposed during their service. It also shows that weakening of the eyesight is not an isolated phenomenon but a widespread risk to which those who take the employment of a driver expose themselves. Yet the Corporation treats their cases in the same manner and fashion as it treats the cases of other workmen who on account of reasons not connected with the employment suffer from ill-health or continued ill-health. That by itself is discriminatory against the drivers. The discrimination against the employees such as the drivers in the present case, also ensues from the fact that whereas they have to face premature termination of service on account of disabilities contracted from their jobs, the other employees continue to serve till the date of their superannuation. Admittedly, no special provision is made and no compensatory relief is provided in the service condition for the drivers for such premature incapacitation. There is no justification in treating the cases of workmen like drivers who are exposed to occupational diseases and disabilities on par with the other employees. The injustice, inequity and discrimination is writ large in such cases and is indefensible. There is no justification in treating the cases of workmen like drivers who are exposed to occupational diseases and disabilities on par with the other employees. The injustice, inequity and discrimination is writ large in such cases and is indefensible. The service conditions of the workmen such as the drivers in the present case, therefore, must provide for adequate safeguards to remedy the situation by compensating them in some form for the all-round loss they suffer for no fault of theirs.” (emphasis supplied) 18. The above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in the case of Anand Bihari (supra) makes it abundantly clear that the drivers who were exposed to occupational diseases and disability may not be put at par with other employees who sustained injuries otherwise than occupational diseases and disabilities. 19. The distinction between injuries sustained while on duty and off duty impliedly has been upheld in the case of Anand Bihari (supra). The principle of law, as laid down in the case of Anand Bihari (supra) has also been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Dass and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1995) 3 SCC 285 . 20. For the purposes of classification between two groups of drivers/conductors, one who sustained injuries while on duty and second, who sustained injuries while off duty per se may not be held to be invalid. But, it requires further elaboration. 21. All the petitioners are not the cases of incapacity due to accident. There are cases of weak eyesight, heart problem and other problems. Even for making such classifications, it was necessary to examine each case individually so as to ascertain as to how each of the petitioners become incapacitated to work on the post which he held. As to whether the incapacity is attributable or has been aggravated by the nature of duty? If the incapacity may be attributable or aggravated due to nature of the duty, its natural corollary would be that such incapacity would fall in the category of “incapacity arisen while on duty”. This exercise has not been done. Therefore, the classification which the respondent no.1 the UTC has done is not complete. 22. What is interesting to note in the instant cases is that even while giving notices for compulsory retirement, the respondent no.1 the UTC did not medically examine the petitioners. This exercise has not been done. Therefore, the classification which the respondent no.1 the UTC has done is not complete. 22. What is interesting to note in the instant cases is that even while giving notices for compulsory retirement, the respondent no.1 the UTC did not medically examine the petitioners. Based on earlier records, the action was taken. In fact, the incapacity of the petitioners has not been ascertained. As stated, many of the petitioners were examined medically long back. There are, in fact, two elements related to it. The action was taken based on the medical certificate placed much earlier on record and the petitioners were assigned alternate duties on which they were working for a long. And as stated, the petitioners were not medically examined before issuing notices for compulsory retirement. 23. Before proceeding further, it would apt to quote Rule 37 of the 2015 Rules, which is as follows:- “37 (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 35, the appointing authority, after giving notice and without stating any reason, may require any employee (Whether permanent or temporary) who has achieved the age of fifty years, to retire. Any such employee who has achieved the age of 45 years or has completed twenty years qualifying service may anytime voluntarily retire after giving notice to the appointing authority. (ii) The period of such notice shall be three months. Provided that- (A) Any such employee who has achieved the age of fifty years may be immediately retired any time without such notice or after giving a notice of relatively shorter period and after such retirement the employee shall be entitled to claim an amount of pay and allowances for notice period or for a period falling short of three months at the rate of which he was drawing these immediately before the retirement. (B) The appointing authority may permit any employee to retire without requiring the payment of any penalty in place of notice from the employee in case of not giving any notice or giving a notice of relatively shorter period. Provided further that above notice given by an employee against whom disciplinary action is under consideration or contemplated shall be effective only when it is accepted by the appointing authority but in case of any contemplated disciplinary action it shall be informed to him before the expiry of notice period that it has not been accepted. Provided further that above notice given by an employee against whom disciplinary action is under consideration or contemplated shall be effective only when it is accepted by the appointing authority but in case of any contemplated disciplinary action it shall be informed to him before the expiry of notice period that it has not been accepted. Provided also that a notice given once by an employee under sub-regulation (10 in which voluntary retirement has been demanded, shall not be taken back by him without the permission of appointing authority. (iii) Retirement pension and other retirement benefits if any, shall be payable and available , subject to and in accordance with relevant provisions, to the employee who is governed by Government Order no. 3414/302-170N-72 dated 5 July, 1972 and to any such other employee who has been entitled for these benefits according to the terms of his employment and who is retired or who is required to be retired under this regulation and permitted to retire:- Provided that where an employee specified in this sub-regulation, retires voluntarily under this regulation or is permitted to retire, the appointing authority may for the purpose of pension and gratuity, if any, allow benefit of additional service of five years or of a period in which, had he served, he would have remained till the normal date of over age, whichever is less. Explanation:- (A) For the purpose of this satisfaction that to require the retirement from an employee under sub regulation (I) shall be in the interest of Corporation/public or not, the appointing authority may make consideration of any material related to the employee.” 24. A bare reading of this Rule 37 above makes it clear that the UTC may proceed to compulsorily retire an employee after giving him a notice. But the question is, can it be arbitrarily done? In its counter affidavit, the respondents have also referred to the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to the direction of the Government of India issued by an office memorandum dated 28.08.2020, No. 25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, with regard to periodic reviews of Central Government employees for strengthening administration under fundamental Rule 56. It is argued that before taking any such action, the review committee has to be constituted. It is argued that before taking any such action, the review committee has to be constituted. Reference has been made to Clause 8 of the above office memorandum which reads as follows:- “8. Composition of Review and Representation Committee:- 8.1 The concerned Secretary of the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) will constitute Review Committee of two members at appropriate level as under:- (i) In case of officers holding Group A posts:- Review Committee shall be headed by the Secretary of the concerned CCA. Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, Postal Board, Telecom Commission etc, the Review Committee shall be headed by the Chairman of such Board. (ii) In case of Group B (Gazetted) officers:- Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer shall head the Review Committee. (iii) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees:- (a) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However, in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head. (b) In the cases of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee. Chief Vigilance Officer, in case of Gazetted officers, or his representative in case of non-Gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee. 8.2. The composition of Representation Committee for all Government servants shall consist of:- (a) A Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Cabinet Secretary; (b) Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat; and (c) One member nominated by the CCA.” 26. Learned counsel has also relied on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Gujarat and another Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 . 27. Learned counsel would submit that the service record of the petitioner ought to have been examined and a satisfaction was to be recorded that it was not in public interest to continue the petitioners in the service. But, it is argued that it has not been done. 28. In the case of Suryakant (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the question of compulsory retirement and satisfaction of the authority, observed as follows:- “23. But, it is argued that it has not been done. 28. In the case of Suryakant (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the question of compulsory retirement and satisfaction of the authority, observed as follows:- “23. In order, therefore, to find out whether any government servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of overall performance of that government servant has to be taken before deciding, after he has attained the age of 50 years, either to retain him further in service or to dispense with his services in public interest, by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. 24. The performance of a government servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty or integrity of a government servant is to look at his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorisation of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of “integrity”. If this is missing, the whole bundle would disperse. A government servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight.” 29. Many petitioners have been given alternate assignment due to their incapacity to hold the post on which they were appointed more than ten years back and they have been working on that position. Now two things emerged, they are:- (i) The petitioners were not medically examined before giving them notice for compulsory retirement. (ii) No review committee was constituted to assess the performance of their work on the position on which they were working. 30. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that after notices for compulsory retirement, many representations were received, which were considered in a meeting held on 19.12.2022 and four notices were withdrawn. The subsequent meeting for consideration of the representation may not substitute the review committee. The performance and appraisal of the petitioners either on their medical condition or on their working has not been done. The subsequent meeting for consideration of the representation may not substitute the review committee. The performance and appraisal of the petitioners either on their medical condition or on their working has not been done. On this count also, the impugned notices for compulsory retirement are bad in the eye of law. 31. There is another aspect of the matter. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act, 2016”) has been enacted pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“PwD”). Section 3 of RPwD Act 2016 makes provisions with regard to equality and discrimination in respect of PwD. It reads as hereunder:- “3. Equality and non-discrimination.-(1) the appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment. (3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability. (5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.” 32. Section 102 of RPwD Act, 2016 repeals the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”). The definition of PwD has now found its expansion in RPwD Act, 2016. Section 2 (r) defines “a person with benchmark disability”, which in fact includes PwD. Section 2 (s) defines PwD. There is another category which has been defined under Section 2 (t) “Person with disability having high support needs”. Section 2 (zc) defines “specified disabilities”. The definition of PwD has now found its expansion in RPwD Act, 2016. Section 2 (r) defines “a person with benchmark disability”, which in fact includes PwD. Section 2 (s) defines PwD. There is another category which has been defined under Section 2 (t) “Person with disability having high support needs”. Section 2 (zc) defines “specified disabilities”. These definition clauses are as follows:- “(r) “person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measureable terms, as certified by the certifying authority; (s) “person with disability” means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others; (t) “person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority: (zc) “specified disability” means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule;” 33. Section 20 of the RPwD Act is pari materia to Section 47 of the 1995 Act. Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 reads as follows:- “20. Non-discrimination in employment.- (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. (4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service: Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall 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. (5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.” 34. While interpreting Section 47 of the 1995 Act, in the case of Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 243 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 20 and 21 observed as hereunder:- “20. The appellant was appointed in the service of the respondents as an IAS Officer and joined in the year 1977. He served for 30 years till the order of his compulsory retirement was issued on 15-10-2007. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant was insane and in spite of that he was appointed as an IAS Officer in 1977. Therefore, even if it is presumed that the appellant became insane, as held by the enquiry officer, mental illness being one of the disabilities under Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act, under Section 47 it was not open to the respondents to dispense with, or reduce in rank of the appellant, who acquired a disability during his service. If the appellant, after acquiring disability was not suitable for the post he was holding, should have been shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Further, if it was not possible to adjust the appellant against any post, the respondents ought to have kept the appellant on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or, until the appellant attained the age of superannuation whichever was earlier. 21. In view of the aforesaid finding, we are of the view that it was not open to the authorities to dispense with the service of the appellant or to compulsorily retire him from service. The High Court also failed to notice the relevant facts and without going into the merits allowed the counsel to withdraw the writ petition merely on the basis of the finding of the enquiry officer. In fact the High Court ought to have referred the matter to a Medical Board to find out whether the appellant was insane and if so found, in that case instead of dismissing the case as withdrawn, the matter should have been decided on merits by appointing an advocate as amicus curiae.” 35. The respondents authorities even did not examine as to whether the petitioners or any of them need protection of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The respondents authorities even did not examine as to whether the petitioners or any of them need protection of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016. It has not been examined. As stated, review of the medical condition (before giving notice of compulsory retirement) has not been done. The applicability of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 has not been ascertained and the performance of the petitioners at the position on which they have been working, has also not been done. For this reason also, the impugned communications and orders deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 36. The writ petitions are allowed. 37. The impugned communication dated 09.09.2022 and communications dated 19.09.2022, 21.09.2022, 22.09.2022, 26.09.2022 and 03.10.2022, by which UTC gave three months’ notices to the petitioners for compulsory retirement are set aside. 38. In the following writ petitions, the orders by which, the petitioners have been compulsorily retired are also set aside. The petitioner in all these petitions shall be entitled to all the consequential reliefs. SL No. Case Number Order by which compulsorily retired. 1. WPSS No. 2494 of 2022, Daleep Kumar Sharma Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others 21.12.2022 2. WPSS No. 3 of 2023, Pitamber Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and others 21.12.2022 3. WPSS No.16 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 22.12.2022 4. WPSS No.67 of 2023, Gurumukh Singh Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 22.12.2022 5. WPSS No. 68 of 2023, Vishesh Kumar Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 20.12.2022 6. WPSS No.78 of 2023, Bhanu Prakash Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 20.12.2022 7. WPSS No.86 of 2023, Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 8. WPSS No.87 of 2023, Ravikant Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 9. WPSS No.88 of 2023, Ram Asray Shukla Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 10. WPSS No.89 of 2023, Satish Kumar Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 26.12.2022 11. WPSS No.101 of 2023, Alok Williams Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand Dehradun and others 23.12.2022 12. WPSS No.102 of 2023, Amod Sharma Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 10. WPSS No.89 of 2023, Satish Kumar Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 26.12.2022 11. WPSS No.101 of 2023, Alok Williams Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand Dehradun and others 23.12.2022 12. WPSS No.102 of 2023, Amod Sharma Vs. The Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Uttarakhand and others 23.12.2022 13. WPSS No.146 of 2023, Surendra Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 10.01.2023 14. WPSS No.147 of 2023, Malkeet Singh Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Dehradun and another 10.01.2023 15. WPSS No.635 of 2023, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others 23.12.2022