Disposed

K. Prasad v. Apsrtc.

Telangana HC30 Dec 2011WP/34172/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court directed the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alternative duties and payment of wages after his medical unfitness for driver duties, ordering action within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for allocation of alternative duties and payment of wages from the date of unfitness within two weeks.

K. Prasad Vs Apsrtc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 34172 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not providing alternate job, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent to provide alternate job/post to the petitioner as directed by the Medical Board and consequently pay the salaries with effect from 14.08.2010 to till date.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

¶6

The facts of the case, in brief, are:-

¶7

The petitioner was appointed as Driver in 1991 in the respondent-Corporation. The 3^rd respondent directed him to undergo periodical medical examination in APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka. After examination, he was declared unfit for Driver duties on 14.08.2010. On 20.01.2011, the petitioner was referred to the Department of Psychiatry in the NIMS Hospital for re-examination. After re-examination in NIMS Hospital, he was declared unfit for driving heavy vehicles, however, the medical authorities suggested for allocating lighter duties. Thereafter, the APSRTC Tarnaka Hospital issued a letter dated 20.06.2011 to the 3^rd respondent stating that the

¶8

petitioner is unfit for driver duties. The petitioner was again subjected to Medical Board on 20.10.2011. After the said Medical Board, no action was taken. The petitioner is out of employment since 14.08.2010 as he is not fit for driver duties and further he was not entrusted any alternate duties as suggested by the medical authorities. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2011 to the respondents, seeking allocation of alternate duties, and to pay salary from 14.08.2010, but no action has been taken. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per circulars issued by the Corporation and as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act), the petitioner is entitled for alternate employment, and as the petitioner was declared medically unfit, it is mandatory for the respondents to comply with Section 47 and provide alternate employment and also pay the salary with effect from 14.08.2010.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that since the petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2011, the respondents may be directed to consider the said representation.

¶11

Admittedly, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the driver post and was suggested for lighter duties by the medical authorities. However, the

¶12

Corporation further subjected the petitioner to Medical Board on 20.10.2011 and there is no action from the respondents after the said Medical Board. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2011 seeking wages from 14.08.2010 and requested to allocate lighter duties, but the respondents have not acted upon the said representation and the petitioner is out of employment from 14.08.2010 and without salary.

¶13

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders with regard to allocation of alternative duties, consequent to Medical Board dated 20.10.2011, and also for payment of wages from the date the petitioner was not entrusted any duties though he is stated to have been attending for duties, within a period of 02 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

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

¶15

__________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶16

30^th December, 2011

¶17

KSM

K. Prasad v. Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Prasad v. Apsrtc.

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

D. Uma Rani Vs Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation

N.R.Thirtha Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

R. Seetaiah Vs The Regional Manager

B. Ravi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

V.Chinnayya Naidu, Vs Deputy Registrar of Coperative Societies

Md. Akthar, Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director