Holding

The High Court’s direction to appoint a dependent is unjustified; the State must first provide alternative employment to the medically unfit drivers, and compensation is payable only in exceptional cases where no such employment can be arranged, in accordance with Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

Summary

The petitioners were drivers in Haryana Roadways who were retired after being declared medically unfit for heavy‑vehicle driving due to eyesight defects. They sought a writ directing the State to appoint one of their sons to a suitable post. The High Court granted the writ, but the State appealed, relying on Government communications dated 20‑Aug‑1992 and 23‑Nov‑1992 which prescribe retirement for non‑occupational disease and re‑employment or compensation for occupational‑hazard‑related incapacity. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had not become blind or totally unfit, and that the 20‑Aug‑1992 communication applied, requiring the State to provide alternative employment to the drivers, with compensation only if no such job is available, following the precedent of Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Consequently, the High Court’s order to appoint a dependent was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a driver declared medically unfit due to occupational hazards is entitled to alternative employment rather than retirement.
Whether the High Court could direct appointment of a dependent of the medically unfit driver.
Whether the Government communications of 20‑Aug‑1992 and 23‑Nov‑1992 and the Anand Bihari judgment govern the entitlement to re‑employment or compensation.
Whether compensation is payable when alternative employment is not feasible.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Acts. 2(oo)

Subjects

service lawmedical unfitnessoccupational hazardre‑employmentalternative jobcompensationtransport corporationretirement benefitsdependents appointmentindustrial disputes act

Judgment

'
A STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
HAWA SINGH ETC. ETC.

FEBRUARY 23, 1995

B [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. N.P. SINGH AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

Service Law: Haryana Roadway~Drivers declared madically unfit for
driving heavy vehicles-Government's communications dated 20.8.1992 and
23.11.1992 making provisions for alternative jobs and for giving appointment_
C to one of the dependents-Claim for appointment allowed by High Courl-On
appeal held the High Court's direction not justified-Directions issued for
providing alternative job and if it is not possible to pay compensation.

The respondent were drivers in the Haryana Roadways. Due to defect
in their eyesight, the District Medical Officer declared them medically
D unfit for driving heavy vehicles. Therefore, they were retired from service.

The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court for a direction
that one of their sons be given employment. The High Court allowed the
Writ petitions and directed the State Govt. to give employment to one of
E their sons.

In this appeal, it was contended that a communication dated
20.8.1992 was issued by which if a Driver becomes unfit due to disease not
related to his employment, he should be retired from service on medical
grounds by following the procedure prescribed; that in case the incapacity \....
F is related to occupational hazards, then efforts should be made to find an
alternative employment, treating it as reemployment, but such driver
should be capable of performing that job; and that in another communica·
tion issued on 23.11.1992 it was decided to give appointment to one of the
dependents of the_ regular Government official who become blind or -~
G Nakara during service and that such officials will have to get a certificate
of Unfitness from the Special Medical Board constituted by the Health
Department.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

H HELD : 1. There is no dispute that respondents had not produced
282
STATEOFHARYANAv. H.SINGH[N.P.SINGH,J.) 283

any certificate of unfitness from the Special Medical Board saying that A
they had become blind or Nakara while in service. The medical certificate
produced by them from the Civil Surgeon only certifies that they were
medically unfit for driving heavy vehicles. But that does not mean that they
have become blind or completely unfit for any service, Moreover, they being
the employees of the Haryana Roadways, the communication dated B
20.8.1992 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana shall be ap-
plicable in their case because it deals specifically with the Drivers who
become medically unfit to continue as drivers in service of the Haryana
Roadways. That communication does not speak of giving any employment
to any of the dependents of such Drivers only on the ground that they have
' become medically unfit for heavy vehicles. It is an admitted position that C
the respondents who were Drivers of heavy vehicles have not become blind,
but due to occupational hazards their eyesight has become weak and
beccause of that they have been retired from the service of the Haryana
Roadways. [285-D-F]

2. The appellants are directed to give an alternative job to the D
respondents strictly following the judgment of this Court in Anand Bihari
v. Rajasthan State Road Transpon Corporation. Only in exceptional cir-
-*' cumstances, where it is not possible to adjust them in any alternative job,
then they shall be paid compensation as indicated in the said judgment of
this Court. [287-C-D] E
Anand Bihari and Others v. Rajasthan State Road Transpon Corpora-
tion, Jaipur and Another, [1971) 1 SCC 731, held ~pplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3079 of
.,./ 1995 etc. etc. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3664 of 1993.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aysha Khatri, Ms.
Indu Malhotra, G.P. Singh Kamal Baid and Ranbir Yadav for the Appel- G
lants.

B.S. Malik and J.S. Malik, D.K. Garg and M.S. Dahiya for the
Respondent in C.A. No. 3079/95.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
J
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.

The appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana for
setting aside the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant-
State to appoint the sons of writ petitioner Resspondents on suitable jobs
B commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed by them. The
respondents in the two appeals were employed as Drivers in the Haryana
Roadways. In the course of time they were declared medically unfit for
driving heavy vehicles by the District Medical Officer because of the defect
in their eye-sight. On the basis of the medical report, the respondents were
retired from the service of the Haryana Roadways.
c
They filed writ petitions before the High Court for a direction that,
on being declared medically unfit for the post of the Drivers and having
been retired from service one of their sons should be given employment.
The High Court has allowed the writ petitions and has directed to give
D employment to one of their sons. On behalf of the State, it was pointed out
that the Transport. CommiSsioner of the State of Haryana had issued a
communication dated 20.8.1992 in respect of the procedure to be followed
in case of removal of Drivers on account of their being medically unfit to
dirve heavy vehicles. In the said communication the aforesaid question has
been considered in depth by the State Government in the light of the
E judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Bihari and Others v. Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Another, [1991] 1 SCC 731.
A decision has been taken that if a Driver becomes unfit due to disease
not related to his employment, he should be retired from sefvice on
medical grounds by following the procedure prescribed therein. On the
F other hand, if the incapacity is related to the occupational hazards, then
first an effort should be made to find an alternative employment which may
not necessarily be in the same scale of pay as the one he was holding
earlier. But it should be ensured that such Driver is capable of performing
that job. In that event, such employee who is given alternative employment
shall be deemed to have retired from his earlier employment with whatever
G retirement benefits admissible to him and shall draw the salary on basis of
re-employment in addition to his retirement benefits, provided that the
pension plus the salary on re-employment does not exceed the last pay
drawn. In that very communication it has been further provided that in case
no job was available and the General Manager certifies to that effect, in
H that event the employee shall be paid along with the retirement benefits
\.

STA1EOFHARYANAv. H.SINGH(N.P.SINGH,J.] .. 285

additional compensation amount, the details whereof have been given in A
the said .communication.

Yet another communication was issued on 23.11.1992 by the Chief
Secretary to the Govermnent of Haryana in respect of incentives to be
given to the Government servants who become unfit during service by
giving appointment to the dependents of such Governemnt servants who B
become blind and unfit. The said communccation says :

".........it has been decided to give appointment tp one of de-
pendents of the regular Government official who become blind or
Nakara during service.........." C

It further provides that such unfit officials will have to get a certificate of
unfitness from the Special Medical Board constituted by the Health
Department.

There is no dispute that respondents had not produced any certifi- D
cate of unfitness from the Special Medical Board saying that they had
become blind or Nakara while in service. The medical certificate produced
by them from the Civil Surgeon only certifies that they were medically unfit
for heavy vehicles. But that does not mean that they have become blind or
completely unfit for any service. Moreover, they being the employees of the E
Haryana Roadways, the communication dated 20.8.1992 issued by the
Transport Commissioner, Haryana shall be applicable in their case because
it deals .specifically with the Driv~rs who become medically unfit to con-
tinue as drivers ·in service of the Haryana Roadways. That communication
does i;iot speak of giving and employment to any of the dependents of such
Drivers only on the ground that they have become medically unfit for heavy F
vehicles. It is an admitted position that the respondents who were Drivers
of heavy vehicles have not become blind, but due to occupational hazards
their eyesight has become weak and because of that they have be~n retired
from the service of the Haryana Roadways.
G
According to us their case is fully covered by the view expressed by
this Court in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(supra), where this Court held that long services of Bus Drivers of a State
Road Transport Corporation, on ground of their defective or subnormal
eyesight developed during course of employment, should not be terminated
because that will be unjustified; unequitable and discriminatory. This Court H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A also directed to frame scheme for providing alternative jobs along with
retirement benefits. It is true that this Court said that in case of non-
availability of alternative jobs, additional compensation proportionate to
the length of service rendered by them.should be given. In this background,
the High Court was not justified in directing that one of the dependents of
the respondents be given a suitable job commensurate with the educational
B qualifications possessed by him.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the orders of the High
Court are set aside. We direct the appellants to give an alternative job to
the respondents strictly following the judgment of this Court in Anand ''<
Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Only in /
C exceptional circumstances, where it is not possible to adjust them in any
alternative job, then they shall be paid compensation as indicated in the
said judgment of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.

D SLP (C) No. 6162/1995

Leave granted.

These appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants who had
been employed as Drivers in Haryana Roadways. While in service, their
E eyesight became defective and subnormal. On that ground, the appellants
were retired from the service of the Haryana Raodways. The Writ Petitions
filed on their behalf were dismissed by the High Court.

The question whether a State Road Transport Corporation can retire
the Bus Drivers on the ground of their defective or subnormal eyesight
F developed during the course of the employment has been examined by this
Court in the case of Anand Bihari and Others v. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Another, (1991] 1 SCC 731. This Court
held that such terminations of service were unjustified, unequitable and
discriminatory, though not amounting to retrenchment within the meaning ......._
G of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was impressed by this
Court that service conditions of the Bus Drivers must provide adequate
safeguards because such Bus Drivers have developed defective eyesight or
subnormal eyesight because of the occupational hazards. A scheme was
directed to be framed for providing alternative jobs along with retirement
benefits and for payment of additional compensation proportionate to the
H length of service rendered by them, in case of non-availability of alternative
\
{

STA1EOFHARYANAv. HSINGH[N.P.SINGH,J.] '1137

jobs. It was brought to our notice that in view of the judgment in Anand A
Bihali v. Rajastltan State Raod Transport Corporation, (supra), the
Transport Commissioner, State of Haryana has issued a communication
dated 20.8.1992.

It appears that some of the appellants suffered serious injuries during
the course of their employment which incapacitated them performing their B
duries. Initially, they were transferred to lighter duties, but while they were
working on those posts, they were retired from service on the ground that
they were medically unfit. From the written submission filed on behalf of
the respondents before the High Court, it appears that the terminal
benefits have been paid to them. If the Judgment of this Court in Anand
Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) is read in its C
proper context and spirit, then it has to be held that this Court impressed
on the State Road Transport Corporation to first provide for alternative
jobs to such Drivers who have become medically unfit for heavy vehicles.
A direction for payment of additional compensation was given only when
it is not possible at all in the existing circumstances to provide alternative D
jobs to such Drivers. It need not be pointed out that the au_thorities of the
Corporation should not take recourse only to the payment of the additional
1"'"
compensation without first examining whether such Drivers could be put
on alternative jobs.

Taking all facts and circumstances. into consideration, we direct the E
respondents to apply their mind properly to the question whether the
appellants who have suffered injuries and have become medically unfit can
be put to some alternative jobs by way of rehabilitation. The question of
J payment for additional compensation will arise only when it is not possible
,/ to provide alternative jobs to them or some of them.
F
Accordingly, we allow the appeals to that limited extent. The ques-
tion of providing alternative jobs to them shall be examined by the respon-
dents preferably within four months from the date of production of the
order. It need not be pointed out that question of providing alternative jobs
shall be applicable only till the date of the superannuation of the respon- G
dents. In case, alternative jobs are provided to the appellants or any one
of them, then if the additional compensation has been paid to them or any
one of them, have to be refunded to the Haryana Roadways. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.