Disposed

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, v. Shaik Fareeduddin

Telangana HC28 Nov 2018WA/19/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ appeal filed by TSRTC officials challenging a prior order regarding disability benefits. The Court, noting the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 interpreting 'disability' under Section 47 of the Act of 1995, directed the respondent to make a representation on eligibility. The case will be disposed expeditiously based on Supreme Court law

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is disposed of with directions for the respondent to make a representation regarding disability eligibility under the Supreme Court's interpretation.

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T APPEAL No.19 OF 2017

¶3

JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The officials of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, presently under the control of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), are in appeal aggrieved by the common order dated 26.09.2016 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in so far as it pertains to W.P.No.10651 of 2014. The issue that arose for consideration in the batch of cases before the learned Judge was with regard to the scope and import of Section of 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act of 1995’). By the order under appeal, the learned Judge took note of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 08.09.2016 passed in W.A.No.1120 of 2015 and batch and directed the officials of the present TSRTC to examine the case of each of the writ petitioners and take necessary steps for implementing the provisions of the Act of 1995 in terms of the law laid down in W.A.No.1120 of 2015 and batch within a time frame.

¶5

We are now informed by Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, that the judgment dated 08.09.2016 of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1120 of 2015 and batch was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch. A copy of the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in the said batch of cases is placed on record.

¶6

Perusal of the aforestated order reflects that the Supreme Court opined that the expression ‘disability’ in Section 47 of the Act of 1995 was

¶7

¶8

not used in a different context and would abide by the definition in Section 2(i) thereof. In effect, the Supreme Court held that only those who are disabled within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995 would be entitled to the benefits under Section 47 thereof. This opinion ran contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 08.09.2016 in W.A.No.1120 of 2015 and batch and would override them. The appellants would therefore have to consider the case of the respondent keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch.

¶9

It would be open to the respondent to make a representation citing the circumstances under which he claims to be covered by the definition of ‘disability’ under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the appellants shall consider the case of the respondent in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch and take a decision as to whether or not he is entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 1995. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the respondent.

¶10

The writ appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

¶11

Interim order dated 03.01.2017 shall stand vacated. Pending

¶12

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

_________________

¶14

SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶15

_________________ M. GANGA RAO, J