Allowed

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024WP/104703/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a lighter alternative job. The Court quashed the order rejecting his application and directed the respondent corporation to assign a lighter post commensurate with his medical disability arising from an accident, dismissing the corporation's claim of procedural violation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.07.2024 was quashed. The respondents were directed to provide an alternative lighter job to the petitioner within two weeks.

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104703 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ANAND S/O. BASALINGAPPA MAIGUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR AT N.W.K.R.T.C. JAMAKHANDI DEPOT, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.

¶14

MANJANNA E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

¶17

THE DEPOT MANAGER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAMAKHANDI DEPOT, JAMAKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI LINGARAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶22

ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.VAAKARASA/BAAVI/SIBBANDI/C-4/1635/2024 DATED 05/07/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-G;

¶23

ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE JOB TO THE PETITIONER IN THE ALTERNATIVE/LIGHTER POST FORTHWITH AT 3^RD RESPONDENT DEPOT AND ETC.,.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶28

learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Annexure-G bearing No.VaaKaRaSa/ BaaVi/ Sibbandi/ C-4/ 1635/ 2024 dated 05.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2.

¶30

The petitioner was appointed to the respondent corporation as a Conductor on 01.07.2002. While he was on duty, on 28.07.2023 the scheduled bus bearing No.KA-29/F-1527 plying from Jamakhandi to Hyderabad route, met with an accident at Maniyamakonda in Talangana State and in the course of accident the petitioner sustained

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶32

grievous injuries to his face, right hand, leg and other parts of the body. He was admitted to the District Hospital, Bagalkote, for treatment and after medical checkup, it was recorded by the doctor that the petitioner’s back bone disc L3, L4 and L5 were fractured. Accordingly the doctor advised him to do lighter job in view of the fracture of back bone disc.

¶33

In view of the said medical assessment and the advise of the doctor, the petitioner made a request for alternative job in the respondent corporation due to his medical disability. The respondent corporation referred the petitioner to medical checkup to the District Medical Board, Dharwad and the Medical Board, after examination of the petitioner issued a disability certificate by making an assessment of 45% disability and recommended reassessment thereafter. The doctors after examination found that the petitioner was suffering from lower lumbar spine spondylotic changes in the lower lumbar spine.

¶34

On the basis of the medical disability certificate, the petitioner applied for lighter job in the respondent

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶36

corporation. On appearing before the respondent

¶37

corporation, the respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board and follow the guidelines issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.5622/2022 and the circular issued thereafter by the Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services dated 28.11.2023 and accordingly the petitioner underwent medical checkup once again following the guidelines and circular and based on which the disability certificate and disability calculation sheet was issued. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 verification committee along with the endorsement issued and the disability certificate of the Medical Board, by following the guidelines and the circular issued by the Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services for the lighter job but the same was rejected by the respondent for providing any lighter job and directed him to report to the original post of Conductor and thereafter the petitioner remained absent to the post of Conductor.

¶38

Hence the petitioner being aggrieved by not

¶39

providing him lighter job and rejecting the Medical Board

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶41

certificate is before this Court for redressal of his grievance and to quash the said order passed at Annexure-G dated 05.07.2024.

¶42

It is vehemently contended by the learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner that due to the accident the petitioner suffered medical disability and he is unable to do the job of Conductor, but however he is inclined to continue his job in any other lighter work that could be allowed by the corporation instead of the job of Conductor, which involves heavy work and he is unable to do.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel representing the corporation vehemently contends that the petitioner has violated and not followed the circular issued by the Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services, so also the guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.5622/2022 to show the disability suffered by him which prohibits him from doing any job which is assigned. Learned counsel for respondent corporation relied on paragraph No.4 of the order in W.P.No.5622/2022 to contend that the guidelines issued by this Court are not followed by Medical Board issuing

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶46

medical certificate; however, he has not denied the issuance of the medical certificate by the Medical Board and pursuance to which calculation sheet which also been issued which clearly goes to show that the petitioner has encountered medical disability, which prohibits him from doing heavy work and he has been advised by the Medical Board to do the lighter job as stated by the Medical Board and a certificate with regard to the same has been produced by the petitioner.

¶47

Therefore, it cannot be now contended by the learned counsel for respondents that the disability certificate and the disability calculation sheet issued by the Medical Board is false or concocted or fabricated. Under the circumstances the same will have to be accepted and the petitioner will have to be provided suitable alternative lighter job in view of the medical disability certificate and the medical condition suffered by him.

¶48

It is also relevant to note that the certificate at Annexure-A issued by the Medical Board shows that it has recommended the reassessment to be done after a period of

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶50

three years. However, the District Hospital, Dharwad, while issuing the disability calculation sheet has stated the reassessment after taking treatment from the concerned specialist to be conducted after two years. Therefore the respondent corporation shall direct the petitioner for assessment with regard to his medical condition after taking treatment after a period of two years and furnish necessary medical certificate from the Medical Board on the basis of which an assessment can be done by the respondent corporation and assign suitable job based on the said certificate so produced by the petitioner after a period of two years.

¶51

In the circumstances, there is some substance in

¶52

the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the grievance addressed by him, which requires to be considered favourably. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The petition is allowed.

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14891 WP No. 104703 of 2024

¶56

ii) The order dated 05.07.2024 issued as per

¶57

Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶58

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to provide a lighter job to the petitioner other than the post of Conductor in commensurate to his medical disability.

¶59

iv) It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall undergo reassessment of his medical condition from the Medical Board after a period of two years and furnish a fresh certificate with regard to his medical condition.

¶60

v) The respondents are at liberty to consider the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board after a period of two years and take fresh decisions thereafter.

¶61

vi) Respondent corporation shall provide alternative lighter job to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶62

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶63

MRK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anand S/O Basalingappa Maigur v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Shyalaja S

Gg Finance Corporation (R) Vs Deepashree T

Sri Prashantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Devappa Naik Vs Union of India

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

Shri Prashant Ravindranath Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka