This is a single paragraph order where Justice Subhash B Adi constituted a Writ Petition regarding disability and appointment. The court directed the Second Respondent to consider an application for light duty. The petition is disposed of.
Respondent 2 to consider the petitioner's representation for light duty within 2 months; petition disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
WRIT PETITION No.39835/2012(S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN :
R GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT TAVAREKERE AT & POST, SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 139
...PETITIONER
( BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADV.,)
AND :
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SMT. NIRMALA, ADV., )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
2
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO ACCOMMODATE THE PETITIONER IN ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE POST [LIGHT DUTY] IN THE CORPORATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 47 OF THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES [EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS & FULL PARTICIPATION] ACT 1995, WITH PAY PROTECTION BY CONSIDERING THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD & COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITY VIDE ANN-G & H TO THIS WP AS WELL AS NOT BEARING NO.1081 DT.11.11.11 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR [ESTABLISHMENT & ENVIRONMENT] VIDE ANN-D TO THE WP.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt. Nirmala, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.
2. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the
second respondent to accommodate him in any other alternative suitable post (light duty) in the Corporation in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3
The Director (Establishment : Environment) by his endorsement dated 11.11.2011, had informed the Regional Controller, Tumkur, to provide light work to the petitioner for a period of one year from 15.11.2011. Petitioner claiming to be disabled, had filed writ petition in W.P. No.1542/2012. This Court, by order dated 20th March 2012, directed the petitioner to approach the Commissioner for Disabilities and get a certificate to prove that he is a person with disability in terms of the Act.
Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board as well as the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and he has been issued certificate as per Annexure H. He made a representation along with the certificate issued by the Medical Board to the second respondent per Annexure J dated 19.05.2012 requesting him to assign light duty.
4
disability within the meaning of person with disability under the Act and if he has produced all the relevant documents in support of the same, the second respondent was duty bound to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
J, he is directed to consider the same as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
What relief is required to direct the Second Respondent to consider a representation for accommodation in light duty and a time limit.
Whether the petitioner has issued a certificate to prove disability.
To dispose of the Writ Petition.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R GOPALAKRISHNA
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC
SUBHASH B ADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court