The court dismissed a review petition challenging a directive to assign lesser duties to a disabled petitioner. It held that the remedy lies with the appropriate forum, not through a review petition, as the earlier order sufficed for a post shift with same pay.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939
RP.No. 98 of 2018
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 24395/2017 DATED 09-10-2017)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
RADHAKRISHNAN.L, S/O.ARJUNA ACHARI, AGED 47, SARASWATHI VILASOM, VALAMCHUZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, NANTHENCODE, TRIVANDRUM. PIN-695 004.
2. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, TRIVANDRUM. PIN-695 004.
R1 & R2 BY SMT.P.K.RADHIKA,SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts 23/3/2018
P.V.ASHA J.
=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review Petition No.98 of 2018 in
W.P.(C).No.24395 of 2018
=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=--=-=
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2018
ORDER
This review petition is filed pointing out that the effect of the Proviso to Section 20 (4) of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was not considered while disposing of the writ petition. This court had directed the respondents to take steps to assign lesser/light duties to the petitioner without any loss of monetary benefits. Petitioner was working as a smith. Respondents stated that petitioner would be shifted from the post of Smith on duty arrangement with the same pay scale and service benefits. The petitioner relies on Proviso to Section 20 (4) of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and submits that the duty arrangement can only be to a comparable post with same pay scale. By the judgment, I have already approved the action of the respondents seeing that
Review Petition No.98 of 2018 in W.P.(C).No.24395 of 2018
petitioner was being shifted to the post without any change in the pay scale.
that the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach
the appropriate forum and not by way of review petition.
Review petition is dismissed.
Sd/
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
jm/
\ True copy \
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the remedy sought against the impugned order lies before this court or the appropriate forum.
Whether the pantry to Section 20(4) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 permits shifting to a comparable post.
Whether the lesser/light duties without loss of monetary benefits were inadequately addressed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhakrishnan.L
The Travancore Devaswom Board
The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
