JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule With consent of parties the writ petition is
taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with
the respondent Corporation in August 1982. The
petitioner sustained injury on 9.10.1998 while
returning from duty. As a consequence of the injury
the petitioner’s right leg had to be amputated and the
petitioner was assessed at 60% disability. The
petitioner was retired prematurely on 22.11.1999. It
may be also relevant to state that the petitioner has
placed a circular dated 4.2.2000 of the respondent on
record to the effect that employees who sustained
injury on account of accident while on duty may be
suitably adjusted on alternative job/ duty during the
period of injury pending consideration of the decision
period of injury pending consideration of the decision
to be taken in respect of rehabilitation of such
employees in view of certain judgments of this Court.
The subsequent development after the filing of
the petition is that the original petitioner Shri
Mahipal Singh expired on 10.6.2001 and his legal heirs
being his widow, two sons and mother were brought on
record who are now the petitioners in the present
petition.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
entitled to the protection under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) which came into effect on 1.1.1996.
4. Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for
respondent however contends that since the petitioner
met with an accident not during the course of
performance of his duty with the respondent, the
protection of the Act would not be available.
5. The petitioner was met with accident while he
was returning from duty. The issue raised by Mr.
Sabharwal has been squarely dealt with in another
judgment of this Court in CW 5700/2000 Rajbir Singh Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and others decided on 24th
January, 2002. The said judgment took into account the
judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court
in Baljeet Singh Vs. DTC, , holding
that the Act being beneficially legislation and has to
be construed liberally and such cases would be covered
under the Act. Baljeet Singh case (supra) was affirmed
right till the Supreme Court.
6. The observation of the learned Single Judge in
CW 382/2000 Ashok Kumar Vs. DTC decided on 10.5.2000
to the effect that Section 47 of the Act does not lay
down any distinction as to the places where the persons
has suffered a disability was also taken note of.
7. In view of the aforesaid judgments the case of
Shri Mahipal Singh would be squarely covered under the
provisions of the Act.
8. Writ petition is thus allowed and the order of
termination dated 22.11.1999 is hereby quashed. Shri
Mahipal Singh would be notionaly treated to have taken
back into service from the date when the respondent
stopped paying full salary after termination of his
services and would be treated as in continuous
employment without any break in service till he expired
on 10.6.2001. The petitioner’s case would thereafter
be treated as of an employee who had expired during
service. The emoluments due to the petitioner for the
period for which he would have served along with
benefits which would arise on account of his death in
service shall be calculated and paid to the present
petitioners who are his legal heirs within a period of
two months from today.
9. Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of
Rs.5000/-.