Disposed

S. Narsimhloo v. Apsrtc., Rep by its Managing Director

Telangana HC3 Sept 2012WP/22166/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a former APSRTC conductor reinstated after removal, sought alternative employment due to cardiac ailments excluding him from strenuous duty.

What did the court decide?

Director of Respondents to refer petitioner to Special Medical Examination Team within three weeks and appoint him on any suitable alternative post within one month of the report.

S. Narsimhloo Vs Apsrtc., Rep by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 22166 of 2003

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

The petitioner initially joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as a conductor in the year 1988, but however, he was removed from service in December 1991, which gave rise to Industrial Dispute No. 94 of 1993. The Labour Court, by its Award, dated 21.12.1996 directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits, continuity of service and with 25% back wages. He was reinstated into service on 02.07.1997 and was then referred for medical examination by the Medical Board on 11.07.1997. The petitioner was examined by a team of two doctors, comprising of Senior Medical Officer (Physician) and Medical Officer (Ophthalmology) of the APSRTC Hospital at Tarnaka, Hyderabad on 18.09.1997. They declared the petitioner unfit for the post of conductor in A2 category due to mitral heart disease suffered by him. Then the petitioner sought for a reference of his case to the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences. By a judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 29439 of 1997 instituted by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for being continued in any other post, if his ailment does not come in the way of discharge of those functions. The case of the petitioner was then referred to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, a superspecialty hospital in Hyderabad. The petitioner has been examined between 18.12.2002 up to 06.02.2003 by the Medical Board. They came to an opinion that the petitioner suffers from “chronic rheumatic heart disease, moderately severe mitral stenosis, severe mitral regurgitation and mild A.R.” Therefore, the Medical Board opined that the petitioner is not fit for strenuous work. In view of this medical

¶5

opinion, the respondent Corporation has not been entertaining the petitioner to any other job, which may not involve strenuous nature of duties.

¶6

Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

¶7

Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are any number of posts, which are either equal to or less than the category of conductor, available with the APSRTC and which may not require great strain to be used for discharging those duties. Consequently, the Corporation should have assigned any one of those duties to the petitioner.

¶8

Sri Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, would submit that after taking into account the opinion of the Nizam’s Institute of Medial Sciences, the Corporation has come to a conclusion that there is no post, which does not involve strenuous nature of duties, with the APSRTC and hence, the petitioner could not be given any alternative employment, but however, the Regional Manager, Medak Region, Sanga Reddy has passed an order on 26.07.2003 stating that the APSRTC Special Medical Examination Team of Doctors certified that the petitioner is unfit for all categories of employment in the APSRTC due to cardiac disease and hence, the petitioner could not be posted against any such alternative post/employment. When I required Sri Venu Gopal to produce the opinion of the Special Medical Examination Team of Doctors of APSRTC, in spite of the best efforts put in, they could not trace the same.

¶9

In these set of circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to forthwith refer the case of the petitioner for examination by a Special Medical Examination Team of Doctors of the APSRTC hospital, within a maximum period of three weeks from the

¶10

date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Special Medical Examination Team of Doctors of APSRTC shall be supplied with the nature of duties that are liable to be performed by the candidates holding posts, which are equal in status to that of a conductor and less than that of a conductor, that are available with the APSRTC, so that the team of doctors will be able to make an appropriate assessment about the fitness of the petitioner for being employed against any such post. Let this examination be completed within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of referring the petitioner for such examination. Based upon the opinion so tendered, the petitioner shall be employed on any such alternative post as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the opinion from the Special Medical Examination Team. For any reason, the APSRTC hospital does not have the assistance of a Cardiologist, it will be open to its management to refer the petitioner to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, duly furnishing them the nature of job that is required to be performed against various posts, so as to enable the hospital to make a realistic assessment of the physical standards of the petitioner to undertake such a job.

¶11

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶12

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.

¶13

---------------------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶14

3^rd September 2012

¶15

ksld

S. Narsimhloo v. Apsrtc., Rep by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Narsimhloo v. Apsrtc., Rep by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunitha Dixit, Vs Sri v. Manohar

P.J.Feevaratnam, Vs Andhra Bank

M. Chenganna, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-I

K.Rambabu Vs Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

A.Krishnaiah Vs B.K.Raghava Reddy

T.Venkata Sudha Vs The Commissioner Endowments Department