Allowed

G.Vivekananthan v. the General Manager

Madras HC16 Oct 2019WP(MD)/13816/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an employee of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging a direction to resume duty as Conductor based on inconsistent medical fitness reports. Court quashed the order and directed reassessment at a different hospital.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.04.2019 is quashed. Writ Petition allowed. First respondent directed to refer petitioner to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, and permit petitioner to work as

G.Vivekananthan Vs the General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13816/2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.P.(MD) No.13816 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.10333 & 10334 of 2019

G.Vivekananthan

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The General Manager

¶8

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region

¶9

Dindigul

¶10

2.The Principal Secretary to Government Health Department Fort St.George Chennai

¶11

3.The Director of Health Services Office of the Director of Health Services Chennai ... Respondents

¶12

(R2 & R3 impleaded vide Court Order, dated 27.06.2019 in W.M.P(MD). N0.10652 of 2019 in W.P(MD).No.13816 of 2019)

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records from the respondent in Ref.Admin/Aa2/1196, dated 01.04.2019 and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar For R1 : Mr.Senthil Kumariah For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Dhayalan

¶15

Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has challenged the communication, dated 01.04.2019, issued by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to report duty as a Conductor based on the report given by the Medical College Hospital, Theni, dated 05.03.2019.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by report, dated 18.10.2016, the Government Theni Medical College Hospital, Theni, stated that 'the petitioner is not fit to perform https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Conductor duty' and by report, dated 05.03.2019, stated that ' the

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.13816/2019

¶21

petitioner is fit to perform Conductor duty with hearing aid'. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the two inconsistent reports of the very same Medical Board, the order passed by the first respondent, dated 01.04.2019 may be set aside and permitted to send the petitioner to appear before the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai to get the Medical Report, for assessing the disability. Till such time, a direction may be given to the first respondent to give alternative job to the petitioner.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner was working as a Security in Dindigul based on the report, dated 05.10.2016. The first respondent permitted the petitioner to work as Security in his depot. While so, on 28.01.2019, the first respondent issued a communication, referring the petitioner to the Regional Medical Board, Aundipatti, Theni District, for reassessment. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board on 05.03.2019 and again, he appeared before the very same Medical Board and received the impugned communication, dated 01.04.2019, in which, the petitioner was directed to report duty as Conductor, immediately.

¶23

4.Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Senthil Kumariah, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Dhayalan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶24

5.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent in Ref.Admin/Aa2/1196, dated 01.04.2019, is quashed. The first respondent is directed to refer the petitioner to appear before the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, for assessing his disability and till such time, the first respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to work as Security in his depot.

¶25

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

msa

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.13816/2019

¶32

¶33

The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region Dindigul 2.The Principal Secretary to Government Health Department Fort St.George Chennai 3. The Director of Health Services Office of the Director of Health Services Chennai +1 CC to Mr.S.KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-92401[F] dated 17/10/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-92498[F] dated 17/10/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH, Advocate ( SR-93002[F] dated 18/10/2019 )

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.13816 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.10333 & 10334 of 2019 16.10.2019

¶35

VB(07.11.2019) 3P 7C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

3/3

G.Vivekananthan v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vivekananthan v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adi-Dravidar Primary School, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Chinnammal Vs Balachandran

A.Devaraj Vs Atulya Misra

Smt.a.Parkavi, Vs the Director

C.Babu Rajan, Vs the Secretary

V.Megavarnam, Vs the Commissioner