Allowed

S.D.Meganathan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC19 Dec 2024WP/17210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, directed the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation to provide suitable alternative employment to a driver with 60% locomotor disability. The court also ordered payment of pending arrears of salary and sanction for an eligible position.

What did the court decide?

Directors directed to sanction eligible position, provide alternative employment with pay protection, and pay arrears of salary immediately.

S.D.Meganathan Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.17210 of 2024

S.D.Meganathan

... Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram District

¶10

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region, Kanchipuram District ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith provide suitable alternative employment to the petitioner with pay protection, continuity of service and backwages from the date of disengagement to till date on which he is provided with alternative light duty, as per Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and on the basis of Certificate of Disability issued by Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai dated

¶12

24.03.2021, within the time limit.

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

¶16

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkatesa Perumal Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith provide suitable alternative employment to the petitioner with pay protection, continuity of service and backwages from the date of disengagement to till date on which he is provided with alternative light duty, as per Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and on the basis of Certificate of Disability issued by Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai dated 24.03.2021, within the time limit.

¶20

According to the petitioner, he joined duty on 07.11.2007 as Driver in the 1^st and 2^nd respondent-Transport Corporation and the petitioner's services were regularised on 21.10.2009. The petitioner is suffering from Neurology problem and continuously taking treatment and on account of the same, the petitioner cannot raise his arms above the shoulder and facing difficulty in walking and climbing stairs. The

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶24

petitioner appeared before Regional Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai on the direction of the 2^nd respondent, wherein the hospital authorities orally intimated that they have sent report to the 2^nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner is not fit for driver job. Once again the 2^nd respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, Chennai and the petitioner has undergone medical test from 29.08.2022 to 13.09.2022 and thereafter onceagain undergone medical test from 23.02.2024 to 07.03.2024. On 19.09.2023, the office staff of the 2^nd respondent herein orally terminated the petitioner and directed the petitioner not to come to office and the petitioner has not received salary for the month of February, March, April and May, 2024. Since the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family and his sons are studying in college, the petitioner has sent various representations, but the same are not considered, hence the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶25

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Medical Board issued a report indicating that the petitioner suffered from Muscular dystrophy – Distal Myopathy and that he was unfit or the driver job permanently.

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶28

At this juncture, a proceedings of the Special Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai – 3 dated 05.04.2024 would show that the petitioner is suffering from 60% locomotor disability. The petitioner was admitted for board case evaluation, who presented with weakness, which was distal in lower limbs and upper limb later proximal lower limb associated with wasting of bilateral thenar and hypothenar muscles. The petitioner was diagnosed with distal predominant progressive myopathy. Routine investigation done. Physiotheraphy opinion at KK Nagar opined as 60% locomotor disability. The Chief Civil Surgeons, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital opined that the petitioner is unfit for his job as driver permanently.

¶29

Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the proceedings of the Special Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai dated 05.04.2024 indicating that the petitioner has suffered 60% disability, the authorities are directed to sanction the eligible position, whatever the petitioner is entitled to. Further, the salary shall be paid to the petitioner for the pending months without any further delay, if not already paid.

¶30

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶32

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

19.12.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes / No Speaking order : Yes/No ssd

¶36

¶37

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram District

¶38

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region, Kanchipuram District

¶39

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

¶41

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

ssd

W.P.No.17210 of 2024

19.12.2024

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.D.Meganathan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.D.Meganathan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Deepa Vs The District Collector

Aravinth Vs the Director General of Police

E.Chittaranjan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Lazar Rathan Raj- 3857 Vs the Managing Director

R.Bharathidasan Vs the District Collector

S.Ravichandran Vs the Secretary to Government