Allowed

M.Vilas v. Regl Mngr. Apsrtc. Adilabad and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Apr 2010WP/1164/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addressed a writ petition filed by a bus conductor rendered physically unfit after an accident. The Court held that under the Persons with Disabilities Act, the employer must accommodate the employee in suitable alternate employment and directed the respondent to continue the petitioner in such a role.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be continued in suitable alternative employment till he attains the age of superannuation.

M.Vilas Vs Regl Mngr. Apsrtc. Adilabad and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.1164 OF 2002

¶3

TH DATED 9 APRIL, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN M.Vilas … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Adilabad Region, Adilabad, Rep. by its Regional Manager. And Another. … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1164 OF 2002

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The petitioner was a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) since the year 1993. While so, the bus that he was conducting on 16.04.1998 met with an accident. Consequently, he lost his left hand thumb and index finger. He was therefore rendered unfit to discharge the duties of a Conductor. He made an application on 01.07.1998 to the APSRTC seeking alternate employment pursuant to which he was allotted ‘out of designation’ duty as an Assistant Depot Clerk vide proceeding dated 24.10.1998. His grievance is with regard to the action of the APSRTC under proceeding dated 10.09.2001 and consequential proceeding dated 29.11.2001 withdrawing him from ‘out of designation’ duty and directing him to continue in service as a Conductor. Hence, this writ petition.

¶9

By interim order dated 25.01.2002, this Court directed the APSRTC to continue the petitioner as a Liaison Officer or in any other ‘out of designation’ post in Asifabad Depot. Upon the vacate stay petition filed by the APSRTC, this Court by order dated 08.07.2002 made the interim direction absolute and directed continuance of the petitioner as a Liaison Officer or in any other ‘out of designation’ post in Asifabad Depot.

¶10

It is stated by both the learned counsel that pursuant to the aforestated orders of this Court the petitioner is still being continued as an Assistant Depot Clerk in Asifabad Depot.

¶11

Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, reads as under:

¶12

“47. Non-discrimination in Government employments:– (1) No

¶13

establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service;

¶14

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefit:

¶15

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

¶16

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

¶17

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section.”

¶18

Section 47 places an obligation upon the ‘establishment’ to accommodate an employee who has suffered physical disablement while in service in any other suitable employment. This statutory obligation upon the APSRTC requires that it should continue the petitioner in a suitable alternate employment without insisting that he should discharge the functions of a Conductor for which he was rendered physically unfit owing to his involvement in the bus accident during the course of discharge of his duties.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the APSRTC to continue the petitioner in suitable alternative employment till he attains the age of superannuation, subject to just exceptions. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶21

9^TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR

M.Vilas v. Regl Mngr. Apsrtc. Adilabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vilas v. Regl Mngr. Apsrtc. Adilabad and Anr.

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.Poshetty, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society

M.Man Singh Vs a.P.Genco

Naravaneni Chandra Rao Vs a.P.Genco

The Depot Manager, Vs Sri Mohan

Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Sri Sanjib Choudhry, Vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Y.Ramchander, Vs The Executive Engineer