Dismissed¶46

B S Indira Bai v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2026WP/23965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acid attack victim; KSRTC employee; light duty; table work; Regulation 17(1) KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1982; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; Circular No. 1735 dated 25/04/2025; office order/endorsement No. KARASA/TUVI/SIBBANDI/C-1/977/2025-26 dated 22/07/2025; pay protection; certiorari; mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; single judge (Jyoti M, J.); writ petition dismissed; interim order discharged.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, demand accommodation under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations because she has already been extended the benefit under the Disability Act (having been accommodated by light-duty and table work under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016). ¶45

B S Indira Bai Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a victim of an acid attack who has already been accommodated by the Corporation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, can claim as a matter of right permanent light-duty accommodation with pay protection under Regulation 17(1) of the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982, and consequently whether the endorsement/office order warrants quashing.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

¶45

Key takeaways

There is no justification to interfere with or quash the endorsement issued by the Corporation; the reasons recorded therein are just and proper.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S-KSRTC) dismissed. The petitioner, a KSRTC employee aged about 42 years and a victim of an acid attack, sought (i) certiorari to quash the office order bearing No. KARASA/TUVI/SIBBANDI/C-1/977/2025-26 dated 22/07/2025 (Annexure H) insofar as her light work was accommodated under Circular No. 1735 dated 25/04/2025 instead of Regulation 17(1) of the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982, and (ii) mandamus directing permanent light-duty accommodation with pay protection under Regulation 17(1). Held: it is undisputed that the petitioner is a Corporation employee and an acid attack victim; taking note of the disability, the Corporation has already accommodated her by assigning light-duty and table work under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; having been extended that benefit, she cannot, as a matter of right, demand accommodation under Regulation 17(1); no justification exists to interfere with or quash the endorsement, whose reasons are just and proper. Interim order, if any, discharged; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23965 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B.S.INDIRA BAI, W/O. BALAJI M., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT C/O. NARAYANA NAIK, SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Sri.Basavaraju M.C., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondents appeared in person.

¶26

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

i) Issue a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned office order bearing No. KARASA/TUVI/SIBBANDI/C-1/977/2025-26 22/07/2025 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure H to the writ petition in so far as accommodation of light work under circular number 1735 dated 25/04/2025, instead of regulation 17(1) of KSRTC cadre and recruitment regulation 1982 is concerned, and

¶28

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to accommodate the light work to the petitioner under regulation 17(1) of the KSRTC cadre and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

recruitment regulation 1982, permanently with pay protection under the facts and circumstances of the case, and

¶33

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner, in advancing his submissions, strenuously contended that the petitioner is a victim of an acid attack. It was urged that the issuance of endorsement and consequent withdrawal of the light-duty assignment earlier extended under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982 (for short, “the Regulations”), is wholly untenable. In such circumstances, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Corporation to continue accommodating the petitioner in light-duty work under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, with attendant pay protection.

¶35

Counsel for the Corporation, in reply, submitted that the issuance of endorsement is fully justified. It was argued that the petitioner had already been accommodated

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, having regard to the fact that she is a victim of an acid attack. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, insist upon accommodation under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982 (for short, “the Regulations”). Accordingly, it was urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with

¶40

care.

¶41

It is undisputed that the petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and that she is a victim of an acid attack. Taking note of the said disability, the Corporation has already accommodated her by assigning light-duty and table work under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The contention and prayer that she should further be accommodated under Regulation 17(1) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982, with pay protection, cannot be acceded to. The reason is plain: the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:31463 WP No. 23965 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

demand accommodation under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations when she has already been extended the benefit under the Disability Act. I therefore find no justification to interfere with or quash the endorsement issued by the Corporation. The reasons recorded therein are just and proper. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶46

Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of.

¶47

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

B S Indira Bai v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B S Indira Bai v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar

B M Gurappa Vs B G Santosh Kumar

Mr. Madiraju Babu Vs Sir.M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G D Arun Vs State Bank of India

Dakshayanamma Vs the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority