Allowed

R. Chandraiah v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC18 Jun 2014WP/30401/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner, a driver medically unfit due to defective vision, was provided alternative employment as a Shramik. The court held the employer liable to pay arrears of wages for the period of invalidation and grant pay protection, relying on Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to fix pay in the Grade-I Driver cadre, grant pay protection, and pay arrears of wages for the period 30.09.2010 to 25.08.2011.

R. Chandraiah Vs The A.P. State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30401 of 2013

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record.

¶5

Since the issue in the Writ Petition lies in a narrow compass, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶6

The facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation in 1990 as driver. When he was discharging his functions, during the course of annual medical inspection, on 30.09.2010 the Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation declared that the petitioner had been suffering from defective vision. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Medical Board of the respondent Corporation, the said Board through its Proceedings dt. 25.08.2011 confirmed the findings of the Medical Officer. It is evident that from the date the petitioner was declared medically unfit to be a driver owing to defective vision, i.e., since 30.09.2010, the petitioner had been kept out of duty.

¶7

From the record it emerges that on 25.08.2011, the petitioner was provided alternative employment as Shramik in which position the petitioner has been continuing, the date of superannuation being 30^th June, 2014.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite providing alternative employment to the petitioner, the respondent Corporation has not fixed his pay, and the wages for the interim period from 30.09.2010, the date of medical invalidation, to 25.08.2011, the date of providing alternative employment, have not been provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, he

¶9

has approached this Court assailing the inaction of the respondents on that count.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the respondent Corporation is willing to take necessary corrective steps concerning the pay protection as to the last drawn wages of the petitioner as driver and apply the same pay scale even in the cadre of Shramik. She has, however, vehemently, contested the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the salary during the interregnum period i.e., from the date of medical invalidation till the date of securing alternative employment. According to the learned Standing Counsel, during the said period, the petitioner had not been working and in fact had been under treatment. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation, contends the learned Standing Counsel, is totally justifying in treating the said period as being sick. Accordingly only the wages that could be given for an employee on sick leave could be extended to the petitioner.

¶11

This issue is no longer res-integra since this Court has determined the issue on more than one occasion, primarily taking into account Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) ACT, 1995 as well as numerous judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶12

To obviate elaborate discussion, in the light of the concession made by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner would be given pay protection, this Court proposes to address the issue of non payment of wages for the interregnum period, referred to above. It is instructive to refer to the Judgment dt. 25.09.2012 rendered by his Lordship Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar in W.P.No.22269 of 2012.

¶13

Under similar circumstances, as could be obtained in the present Writ Petition, in W.P.No.22269 of 2012, this Court has elaborated on the

¶14

impact of Section 47 vis-‘a-vis medical invalidation of the employees of the respondent Corporation. It is profitable to extract a portion of the said Judgment, which is as follows:

¶15

“Notwithstanding the fact that it has already invited several decisions from this Court on the applicability of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 and the obligation cast upon it thereunder, the APSRTC continues to blissfully ignore the same. In the present case however, the APSRTC did choose to provide alternative employment to its disabled employee, the petitioner herein. The manner in which it was done however leaves a lot to be desired. The scheme and structure of the statutory provision puts it beyond doubt that the employer is obligated to see that there is no break in the service of the disabled employee in terms of providing him alternative employment. In the event a suitable post is not available, the second proviso to Section 47(1) of the Act of 1995 makes it mandatory for the employer to create a supernumerary post and accommodate the disabled employee in such post until a suitable post is available. The employer is also obligated to protect the pay-scale and service benefits of such disabled employee under the first proviso”.

¶16

Even with regard to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to any wages for the period the petitioner had been out of duty, the said Judgment provides the answer, which is as follows:

¶17

“The second proviso to Section 47(1) of the Act of 1995

¶18

is absolutely clear in its intent that a disabled employee is not to be kept out of service merely because a suitable post is not available. The employer is required thereunder, if necessary, to create a supernumerary post so as to continue the disabled employee in service till the availability of a suitable post. The APSRTC therefore cannot take advantage of the delay on its part in providing alternative employment to the petitioner. The admitted facts reflect that the inaction in this regard was squarely attributable to the APSRTC. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to salary for the period that he was kept out of service”.

¶19

In the light of the above definitive pronouncement by a co-equal bench of this Court, I do not hesitate to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of arrears of wages for the period from 30.09.2010 till 25.08.2011 when the petitioner was provided alternative employment as

¶20

Shramik, eventually.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent authorities to fix the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of Grade-I Driver and to pay arrears of salary in terms thereof, apart from paying the arrears of wages for the period when the petitioner was kept out of duty before he was provided alternative employment as Shramik. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J

¶23

Date: 18.06.2014 eha

R. Chandraiah v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Chandraiah v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

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

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Ap Genco, Vidhyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

M. Ravi Kumar Vs Ap Genco

B.Nanu, S/o. Andia Vs The Executive Director (Ghz and Hz)

M. Narender, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.David Raju Vs The A.P. Generation Corporation, rep. by its