JUDGMENT Devi Prasad Singh, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable in the year 1971. Thereafter, he has been continued in service as regular employee of the department. In pursuance to order passed by the competent authority, the petitioner was appeared before a Medical Board on 22.1.1986 at Lucknow. The Medical Board on 22.1.1986 had given opinion that petitioner is unfit to be retained in service as he is suffering from a disease called "Motor Neuron disease involving all the four limbs". After receipt of report from Medical Board by the impugned order petitioner's services were dispensed with subject to payment of disability pension w.e.f. 22.1.1986.
3. While assailing the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 47 of the "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short hereinafter referred as Act). The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision contained in Section 47 of the Act the impugned order suffer from substantial illegality and it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to adjust the petitioner on any post for which he suitable to discharge duty. Section 47 for convenience is reproduced as under :
"47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.-- No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a, 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.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability :
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, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."
4. While defending the impugned order learned Standing Counsel submits that the Act has got prospective application and it shall not cover the present, controversy. A perusal of Section 1 of the Act shows that it shall come into effect from the date the Central Government had issued a notification for its enforcement. Central Government had issued a notification on 2.2.1996. Accordingly, the submission is that the Act shall not cover the present controversy.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of apex Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, and submits that Act will have got retrospective application and shall also cover the present controversy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Para 65 of D.S. Nakara (supra). For convenience it is reproduced as under :
".......that is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist republic and Welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling values of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criterion : being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned memoranda. Exts. P-1 and P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under :
In other works, in Ext. P.1 the words :
"that in respect of the Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date."
and in Ext. P-2 the words :
"the new rates of pension are effective from April 1, 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date."
Are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. Let a writ to that effect be issued. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."
6. At the face of record the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the D.S. Nakara (supra) does not seem to be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As in the said case the applicability of regularised pension scheme was in question coupled with the cut-off date provided by the State Government for the enforcement of said scheme.
7. Accordingly, I am of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara's case (supra) shall not be applicable in the present case.
8. It is settled proposition of law that act or statute shall cover the field from the date of its notification unless otherwise provided in the Act itself. At the face of record there the statutory provision contained in Section 1 of the Act shows that, it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification appoint.
9. For convenience. Section 1 of the said Act is reproduced as under :
"Short title, extent and commencement--(1) This Act may be called Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint."
10. In pursuance, to power conferred by Section 1 of the Act a notification was issued by Government of India on 2.2.1996. Accordingly, the provision of the Act has been made applicable only to the dispute which had arisen w.e.f. 2.2.1996 and not with retrospective effect.
11. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is arbitrary, seems to be misconceived. Once a competent Medical Board had declared the petitioner unfit after due medical examination and the competent authority had taken decision of dispensation of the petitioner's services, the High Court may not dwell over the controversy relating to the fitness of the person unless the opinion given by the Board is challenged on the ground of involvement of mala fide or vindictiveness or the opinion is outcome of extraneous reasons or considerations. This Court may not interfere with the opinion of a body like Medical Board which is expert of the field. Petitioner has been already provided disability pension in accordance with rules.
12. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Petitioner shall be paid disability pension in accordance with rules for which he is entitled under law. For any deficiency in pension he can represent the authorities and competent authority shall take a decision expeditiously by passing a speaking and reasoned order.