Disposed

S. Chandra Sekhar, v. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC12 Feb 2009WP/24078/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by an employee of APSRTC seeking an alternative post under the Persons with Disabilities Act after being declared unfit as a Conductor. The court directed the respondents to fix a date for the petitioner's medical fitness checkup within two weeks for a proposed Shramik post, noting entitlement to alternative employment only if declared unfit.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to give a specific date for the petitioner to appear for a medical checkup within two weeks.

S. Chandra Sekhar, Vs The Vice Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 24078 of 2007 and 24965 of 2008

¶5

W.P.No.24078 of 2007

¶6

Between:

¶7

S. Chandra Sekhar, S/o. S. Manik Rao, R/o. H.No. 18-1-292/47/B/10, Shivaji Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's case to continue in any alternative suitable post in terms of Sec. 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in any alternative suitable post in terms of the Sec. 47 of the Act. in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.D.GOWD

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶14

¶15

W.P.N:o.24965 of 2008:

¶16

Between: S.Chandra Sekhar S/o S.Manik Rao, H.No.18-1-292/47/B/10 Shivaji Nagar,Uppaguda, Hyderabad

¶17

..... PETITIONER

¶18

AND

¶19

1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C Musheerabad Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Falakunma Depot,Hyderabad 3 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Hyderabad City Region,Hyderabad

¶20

.....RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner in the suitable alternative post in terms of Sec 47 of The Persons with the Disabilities (equal Opportunities) Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Art 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period from 15-12-2007 to till date and continue to pay till appointing the petitioner in the suitable post in the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.D.GOWD

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K.MADHAVA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC.

¶24

The Court made the following :

¶25

COMMON ORDER:

¶26

These two writ petitions are filed by S.Chandra Sekhar assailing the action of the respondents for not providing him suitable alternative post in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶27

2. Background facts of the case in a nutshell leading to filing of these two writ petitions by S.Chandra Sekhar are: The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondents Corporation in the year 1990. On 25.04.2004 he fell sick due to nerves weakness to his right leg and therefore, he could not perform the duties of Conductor. He submitted sick leave on 10.09.2007. He was sent for medical examination. The Senior Medical Officer, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, declared him as medically unfit for the post of Conductor due to Haemiplegia on 15.06.2007. The Superintendent and CMO, Tarnaka Hospital also declared him medically unfit for the post of conductor on 30.08.2007. According to the petitioner, the respondents are bound to accommodate him with suitable alternative post in terms of Section 47 of the Act and instead they retired him from service through proceedings dated 10.09.2007. He made an application on 13.09.2007 to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting to provide suitable alternative employment to him. There being no response from the respondents, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for in W.P.No.24078 of 2007 reads as hereunder:

¶28

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit in support of writ petition the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case to continue in any alternative suitable post in terms of Sec.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art.14& 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in any alternative suitable post in terms of the Sec.47 of the Act in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶29

The relief sought for in 24965 of 2008 reads as hereunder:

¶30

¶31

illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art.14& 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period from15.12.2007 to till date and continue to pay till appointing the petitioner in the suitable post in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶32

On 15.11.2007 an interim order came to be passed in WPMP NO.31379 of 2007 in W.P.No.24078 of 2007 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for accommodating him in any alternative suitable post in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioner. When the said interim direction is not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner filed C.C.No.957 of 2008. The said contempt case came to be closed since the respondents placed on record the proceedings dated 10.07.2008 purported to have been issued by the Personal Officer-I, Greater Hyderabad Zone, O/o. The Executive Engineer, showing that the petitioner was appointed as Shramik with immediate effect subject to medical fitness. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed in C.C.No.957 of

¶33

2008, which reads as hereunder:

¶34

“Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, placed before the Court the proceedings dated 10.07.2008 purported to have been issued by the Personal Officer-I, Greater Hyderabad Zone, office of the Executive Engineer, showing that the petitioner was appointed as Shramik with immediate effect subject to medical fitness.

¶35

The learned counsel for petitioner states that it is unfortunate that the respondents having fully known the physical condition of the petitioner posted him as a Shramik.

¶36

However, the learned counsel for respondents states that if the petitioner is found not fit to hold the post of Shramik he will be given some other alternative post suitable to his physical capacity.

¶37

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents, the contempt case is closed.”

¶38

3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit in W.P.No.24965 of 2008. A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, Law Officer, APSRTC, Mushirabad,

¶39

Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counteraffidavit that the petitioner did not attend for medical examination and as such the petitioner is not entitled for wages as claimed in the writ petition.

¶40

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶41

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not sent any communication to the petitioner to appear before the medical officer for medical examination and therefore, the question of the petitioner appearing before any medical officer for medical examination does not arise.

¶42

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the alternative appointment order itself it is very clear that the petitioner has to appear for medical checkup and his appointment is subject to the fitness.

¶43

7. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no communication is received by the petitioner directing him to undergo for medical fitness examination.

¶44

8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has not undergone medical checkup as on this day to ascertain his suitability to the post of Shramik. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to give a specific date before whom the petitioner has to appear for medical checkup within two weeks from today. On giving such intimation, the petitioner has to appear for medical examination and if he is found to be not fit for performance of Shramik post, the respondents are under obligation to provide him alternative employment.

¶45

9. With the above observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶46

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶47

Date:12^th February, 2009.

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER To

¶52

1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶53

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}

S. Chandra Sekhar, v. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Chandra Sekhar, v. The Vice Chairman and 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

Thammineni Sailamma Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Mandal

Ahmed Entesham Kawkab, Vs The Govt.of India,Ministry of Commerce

P. Phaneendrudu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gunname Ramarao Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

The Tanguturu Mandal Praja Parishad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary

S.Chandra Sekhar Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director