Allowed

R.S.Shetty v. A.P.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC8 Nov 2011WP/29148/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the APSRTC to provide alternative employment under Section 47 of the PWD Act to a disabled former conductor and to pay pending dues, relying on a prior similar judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed to provide alternative employment under Section 47 of the PWD Act within four weeks and to pay salary and emoluments from the date of injury.

R.S.Shetty Vs A.P.S.R.T.C. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICTURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.29148 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.S.Shetty … Petitioner and The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents.

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

W.P. No.29148 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of

¶12

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the alternative employment either in the post of Attender or Record Tracer or any other suitable post, as illegal, unjust and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently to direct the respondents to provide alternative suitable employment along with all consequential benefits including back wages payable from July, 2006 onwards.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he is an employee of the respondents’ Corporation working as Conductor since 1991. While he was performing duties on 15.05.2006, he sustained head injury and thereafter, while taking treatment he was also affected with paralysis in the month of July, 2006. Thereafter, he was declared as unfit for the post of Conductor by the Corporation hospital on 20.05.2011 and since then no payment is made to him. Therefore, he requested the respondents Corporation authorities to provide suitable alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Act or to pay the wages monthly till he is provided with alternative employment. But as there was no response from the authorities he also got issued a legal notice but in vain. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though

¶14

the petitioner made a representation dated 15.07.2011, the respondents did not consider the same and pass any orders thereon. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court passed the orders in W.P. No.21575 of 2003 wherein this Court directed the respondents therein to comply with the provisions of Section 47 of the Act and further declared that the petitioner therein was entitled to the salary and emoluments he was drawing prior to his disengagement from the service by the respondents therein from the post of Driver A-1 category. Hence, the case of the petitioner herein is also similar to that of the case considered by this Court in W.P. No.21575 of 2003, therefore,

¶15

the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same benefit.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation would submit that the petitioner did not make any representation to the respondents but he got made a representation through his wife and such representation was also made on 15.07.2011. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to make such allegations against the respondents. But, however, he conceded that this case is similar to that of the case considered by this Court in W.P. No.21575 of 2003.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the respondents Corporation as Conductor and as he was affected with paralysis and thereafter, he was declared unfit for the post of Conductor.

¶19

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefits provided under Section 47 of the Act and this Court in similar circumstances given effect of the said provisions but the respondents

¶20

are not extending the same benefit to the petitioner. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶21

From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.21575 of 2003 wherein the petitioner was a Driver declared unfit to continue in the post of A-1 category Driver thereupon, he made an application for an alternative employment and thereafter, as there was no response, the petitioner therein filed the said writ petition, wherein this Court observed as under:

¶22

“On the analysis above, the petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly, a mandamus is issued to the respondents to forthwith comply with the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the salary and emoluments he was drawing prior to his disengagement from the service by the respondents from the post of driver A.1 category. The petitioner shall be paid salary and emoluments on the above basis with effect from 21.8.2002 and the respondents shall continue to pay the salary and emoluments. However, the respondents are at liberty to accommodate the petitioner in an alternative employment and obtain his service in such alternative employment.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.”

¶24

It is clear from the above that the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above are similar to that of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and therefore, the petitioner herein is also entitled to the similar relief that was granted in the above referred writ petition.

¶25

Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and following the order dated 21.01.2004 passed in W.P. No.21575 of 2003, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶26

The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for making necessary payments during the interregnum period i.e. from the date on which he sustained injuries till the date he was declared as unfit to perform his duties of Conductor and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

¶27

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.11.2011 LSK

R.S.Shetty v. A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Shetty v. A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ramulu Hyderabad Vs the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

T. Vijaya Babu, Vs The Railway Protection Force

MD Arif Pasha, Vs The Business Manager

M.Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Secunderabad Division

Md.Naseeruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Yadesh Vs The Regional Manager