STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSURJEET SINGH

                    STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                                  A
                                 v.
                          SURffiET SINGH

                               JULY 9, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                            B

        Se1Vice Law :

     Compassionate appointment-lnstnictions issued by Govemmellt of
Haryana dated Februa1y 22, 1991 read with instluctions dated August 28,
1992-Applicability of
                                                                               c
       Driver--Medical unfitness-Deficie11cy in sight-Compulsory retire-
ment-Request for appointme11t of son as Clerk 011 compassio11at~ejection
of-Writ-High Court held that invalidity in se1Vice attracts instructions for
compassiol!Ote appointment and conseque11tly employee entitled to have his     D
son appointe~Appeal hy State-Held instructions apply only when compul-
sorily retired employee was suffering from blindness or became Nakara in
service-In this case employee having deficiency in sight was not totally
invalid or blin~Held view taken by High Court was not con-ect-But in view
of the fact that employee's son had already been appointed inteiference with
High Court order held not called for.                                          E

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9509 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1995.                                 F

        Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

        Uma Datta for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                       G
        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

        The respondent-Surjeet Singh was a driver of a heavy vehicle. He H
                                   421
    422                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was appointed on December 24, 1986. The Medical Board on his examina-
  tion by proceedings dated september 3, 1993 found that he was suffering
  from Melineal Inter Cr. fractum resue/lant by 5.2 un-c. Consequently, the
  Medical Board opined that he could not perform the duties of a hea'y
  vehicle driver due to the above disability. Pursuant thereto, he was retired
B from service. He made an application for appointment of his son as a clerk
  on compassionate grounds on the basis of the instructions issued by the
  Government. The Government on consideration of his representation
  found that the respondent was neither blind nor nakara (totally invalid) on
  the date of his retirement and that, therefore, he is not entitled for
  appointment of his son on compassionate grounds as a clerk. Feeling
C aggrieved, he filed C.W.P. No. 4088/95 in the High Court. The Division
  Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court by order dated August 29,
  1995 held that the declaration of unfitness on medical grounds, in other
  words, his invalidity in the service, attracts the instructions issued by the
  Government dated August 28, 1992 and consequently he is entitled to have
D his son appointed on compassionate grounds. Calling that order in ques-
  tion, this appeal has been filed by special leave.

          The only question is whether the instructions of the Government
    dated February 22, 1991 read with instructions dated August 28, 1992
    enable an employee having become blind or nakara during service and
E   compulsory retired from service on account thereof, to be entitled for
    appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. It is seen that the
    instructions do clearly indicate that an employee who was compulsory
    retired from service should suffer from blindness or nakara while in senoce
    and the compulsory retirement should follow due to the above factors.
F
         In this case, it is seen that he was neither blind nor nakara on the
  date of the compulsory retirement. The doctors found him that he was
  having deficiency in sight. Consequently, he could not drive the heavy
  vehicle. It would not mean that he was totally blind. Due to disability in
  sight, which is a pre-condition for safe driving of a heavy vehicle, he was
G retired from service and it would not mean that he was totally invalid or
  blind. But we are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the
  High Court, the son of the respondent has been appointed and he is in
  service.

H          Under these circumstances, though we find that the view taken by
                        STATE v. SURJEETSINGH                            423

the High Court is not correct in law, we decline to interfere with the order.   A
However, the order of the High Court is not to be taken to be approved
by this Court. On the other hand, we specifically hold that the view o.f the
High Court is not correct in law. However, we decline to interfere with the
subsequent order passed by the Appellant-State pursuant to the directions
issued by the High Court.
                                                                                B
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                  Appeal disposed of.