Allowed

Sri Somashekarappa S/O Rachappa Chinivar v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/102961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed office orders directing a driver-cum-conductor to revert to his original permanent post after one year as the Petitioner. The Court held that a 45% permanent disability makes the Petitioner eligible for continued lighter job assignment with full benefits.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 16.05.2024 and the office order dated 30.05.2023 limiting lighter job tenure were quashed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to permit the Petitioner to continue in the alte

Sri Somashekarappa S/O Rachappa Chinivar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.102961/2024(S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O. RACHAPPA CHINIVAR, (S.R CHINIVAR) AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, PRESENTLY ON LIGHER JOB, WORKING AT NWKRTC, HUNAGUND DEPOT, BAGALKOTE DIVISION, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOTE DIVISION, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER (CPM), NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 030.

¶15

THE DEPOT MANAGER, NWKRTC, HUNAGUND DEPOT, BAGALKOTE DIVISION, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER OR ORDER QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED. 16-05-2024, BEARING NO. VA.KA. RA.SA. /BHAVI/ SIBBANDI/C6/1216/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND ALSO QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL OFFICE ORDER DATED. 30-05-2023, BEARING NO. VAKARASA/ DHAVI/ SIBBANDI/C5/320, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PROVIDING LIGHTER JOB ONLY FOR ONE YEAR

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶20

INSTEAD OF PERMANENTLY VIDE ANNEXURE-C, BOTH ARE ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT, CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE AFORESAID COMMUNICATION, ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ASSIGN LIGHTER JOB TO THE PETITIONER PERMANENTLY AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016, WITH ALL BENEFITS, BY FIXING OUTER LIMIT AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking quash of the office order dated 30.05.2023 produced at Annexure-C and endorsement dated 16.05.2024 at Annexure-F both issued by the respondent-Corporation.

¶24

Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver-cum-conductor in the year 2006 and after he successfully completing probationary period became permanent employee of the respondent-Corporation. That in the year 2020 he noticed sever pain of mouth ulcer and he was diagnose of cancer. He was also subjected to various radiation therapies. He underwent surgery and was discharge by indicating that he is suffering from “Carcinoma of Right Buccal Mucosa”. That due to the surgery, petitioner not in a position to eat normal food and

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶26

he is required to take only liquid food and the doctor has fixed permanent food pipe on the petitioner.

¶27

Taking into the consideration of health condition of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation has assigned a lighter job for the petitioner for a period of one year further calling upon the petitioner to undergo medical examination. The petitioner subjected himself for medical examination by the Medical Board, who on examination of the physical condition of the petitioner and also on verification of the records issued a certificate holding that the petitioner is suffering from 45% permanent disability and that he also has difficulty in his speech.

¶28

When things stood thus, since the petitioner was assigned alternate employment for a period of one year and the same was going to expire on 29.05.2024, the petitioner had requested the respondent-Corporation to continue him to work in the lighter job segment in view of the permanent disability suffered by him. In response thereof, the Respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated 16.05.2024 as per Annexure-F stating that since the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶30

petitioner was given an alternate post in the lighter jobs segment for a period of one year and the same was to expired on 29.05.2024 he was required to report to his original employment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the circular bearing No.1515 dated 26.03.2014 at Annexure-G issued by the respondent-Corporation submits that earlier by a circular dated 10.05.2013 employees who had suffered disability

¶32

during their employment due to certain illness as mentioned in the rights of person with disability act or due to accidents during the course of employment were required to obtain and submit their medical certificates every year. That subsequently by another circular dated 20.05.2013 the employees who suffered disability of 40% and above were required to obtain and submit certificate for every six month. That as regard to the employees who were suffered permanent disability requiring to obtain certificate from the Medical Board for every six months,

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶34

same was challenged in W.P.No.52966/2014 and W.P.No.2517/2014. That this Court while allowing the said

¶35

writ petitions has held that there was no need to obtaining certificates in every six months in the case of employees who suffered permanent disability of 40% and above and that such employees were required to be continued in the alternate employment.

¶36

Subsequently, circular No.1515 dated 26.03.2014 as per Annexure-G has been issued by the respondent-Corporation clarifying that in the case where the Medical Board certificate states in clear terms that the disability which the person is suffering is non-progressive and is not likely to improve, the re-assessment of the disability was not necessary.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

in the instant case since the Medical Board has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 45% which is permanent in nature, the impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2024 produced at Annexure-F runs contrary to the aforesaid circular bearing No.1515 dated 26.03.2014.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation

¶41

does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter.

¶42

Thus, when admittedly the petitioner has been issued with a medical certificate by the Medical Board certifying that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 45% and when the same is in consonance with the circular at Annexure-G the question of the petitioner being called upon to revert to his original post merely because limited period of alternative employment of one year has expired cannot be countenanced. The certificate issued by the Medical Board being clear and categorical, the petitioner cannot be called upon to revert to his original post contrary to the circular issued by the respondent-Corporation.

¶43

In that view of the matter; (a) the petition is allowed. (b) Impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2024 produced at Annexure-F is quashed. The order dated 30.05.2023 produced at Annexure-C limiting the period of alternative employment only for a period of one year is

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7325 WP No. 102961 of 2024

¶45

also quashed. (c) Respondent-Corporation is directed to permit the petitioner to continue in the alternate employment which is given to him as per previous order vide Annexure-C and shall pay all applicable service benefits to him.

¶46

In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri Somashekarappa S/O Rachappa Chinivar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somashekarappa S/O Rachappa Chinivar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saraswati W/O Suresh Gudadur Vs Sri Suresh S/O Hampanna Gudadur

Smt.Vijaylaxmi W/O Basavaraj Pille Vs Shri.Basavaraj

Smt Channamma W/O Lae T Narasappa Vs Allabakshi S/O Makandar Mahbu Sab

The Belgaum Zilla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Balabheema Vs the Appellate Authority

S Ramanayak S/O. R. Sanyanaka Vs Chancellor