Dismissed

P. Kanakaiah v. The Managing Director Tsrtc

Telangana HC13 Jul 2023WP/16049/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired conductor challenged his superannuation due to medical unftness, seeking alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that TSRTC was exempt from Section 20 of the Act via G.O.Ms.No.42 and followed guidelines regarding additional monetary benefits or employment for dependents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to approach respondents to avail benefits under prevailing rules.

P. Kanakaiah Vs The Managing Director Tsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16049 OF 2018

¶8

Between

¶9

P. KANAKAIAH, S/o. BALAIAH Conductor (Retired on Medical Grounds) Musheerabad Depot T.S.R.T.C HYDERABAD - 500 020 F/o, H.No.17-23141117118 Poolathota, Kurmaguda Saidabad, HYDERABAD - 500 059

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The Managing Director TSRTC, Bus Bhavan Musheerabad HYDERABAD - 500 020

¶13

The Depot Manager, Musheerabad Depot Musheerabad HYDERABAD - 500 020

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the lmpugned proceedings No P'1169301/201B|MSRD1, dated 0B 022O18, issued by the respondents superannuating the petitioner by declaring medically unfit, thereby terminating the service of the petitioner without providing alternative employment as per provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in any alternative post by also paying salaries and other allowances from the datetof impugned proceedings dt 08 02 20'lB, till the date of reinstatement with interest 18 per annum etc

¶16

(Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1310412023 in lA 01/2023)

¶17

IA NO: oF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents to provide Out of Designation employment as the^petitioner hither to was engaged till the final disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^permit the petitioner herein to file the^present Additional Affidavit along with Additional Material Papers appended herewith for better adjudication of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. G V SHIVAJI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR^TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEE././ENUGOPAL

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.16049 of 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

1 Heard Sri Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned standing counsel for TSRTC.

¶25

2 Cl:ailenge in this writ petition is to the impugned Memo dated OB.O2.2O1B^issued by^the second respondent^whereby the services of the^petitioner as Conductor^were terminated on the ground- that the Medical Officer, APSRTC dispensary, Musheerabad, assessed the suitability of the petitioner for the post of A-2 category Conductor and found him r-nfit due to post traumatic OA (Rt) Ankle Knee with varus deforrnity.

¶26

3 Petitioner asserts that he was appointed as Conductor in the second respondent Depot on 18.07.199 1 on temporary basis followed by regulation on 13.1I.1992 and he p:ut 26 years of continuous service.

¶27

4 lt is the further submitted that while he was traveling as a pillion rider on a two wheeler he met with a fatal accident on 02.12.2O11 in which his maternal uncle died on the spot, while the petitioner survived with major ankle injury resulting in loss of a bone in the ankle

¶28

2 5 Petitioner made an application to the first respondent on 16.07.2012 requesting to allot an out of designation (O.D) branch of work since he is not fully recovered to perform his conductor duties. The lirst respondent accepted the sarne and directed the second respondent [o allot O.D duties till 30.06.20 13.

¶29

6 While so, the first respondent directed the petitioner lbr evaluation by the concerned specizrlist / committee members at RTC hospital, Tarnaka, vide proceedings dated ll.O8.2Ol7, with a further direction to the second respondent to submit compliancc report. The second respondent also directed the petitioner to undergo evaluation at RTC hospital, Ta-r:naka. In the meanwhile, the petitioner again made a representation to the second respondent on 29.O8.2O 17 to grant him O.D duties. The hospital authorities, after conducting necessary tests from time to time, ultimately issued frtness certificate dated 13.O9.2017 to perform his duties with effect from 13.09.2017. But subsequently when he approached the hospital authorities, the Medical Officer gave certifrcate dated ll.l0.2ol7 stating that he was unfit to perform his duties as A2 category Conductor.

¶30

7 The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opporturrities, Protection of Rights ald Full Participation) Act, 1995, he is entitled to be

¶31

¶32

engaged on O.D. duties or alternative employment. But^the respondents have issued the impugned Memo dated Oa.O2.2}la terminating his services. Hence he is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶33

8 The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the Medical Officer declared that 'not recommended for OD duties' which was signed by the Chief Medical Officer on Ol.O9.2Ol7. Therefore, he was declared unfit for A-1 category on LA.O9.2OI7. He was initially allotted to work on out of designation duties from 19.O7.2012 to O9.O8.2O17. As the petitioner was found unfit to perform duties as A-2 category conductor, he was retired on medical grounds vide proceedings dated 08.O2.2O18.

¶34

9 The respondents further submitted that the Corporation cannot accommodate r-rnIit conductors in out of designation cluties for extended period of time. The out of designation duties are allotted to employees who are undergoing treatment and there is a likelihood of the employee recovering and thereafter being declared fit for employment in their respective categories of employment. It is categorically subrnitted that the Corporation will provide additional monetary benefit to the petitioner or employrnent to one of his dependants if eligible as per Circular No.PD- 19 /2015, dated O3.06.2015 apart from payment of retiral benehts to him. But the petitioner, instead

¶35

¶36

of availir:g the option urnder Circular of the Corporation, has approached this Court for a dircction to allot hirn out of de signat.ion duties is not feasible.

¶37

10 Learnecl counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which reads as under:

¶38

Non-discrimination in Government ernployment.-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disabiiity durinB his servicer

¶39

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holdin& could be shifted to some other^post with tlle saruc^pay scale and service benefits.

¶40

Provided further tlrat if it is not possiblc to adiust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available oI he attains the age of superaunuation, lvhichcver is earlier.

¶41

(2) No promotion shall he denied to a pcrson merely on the ground of his disability:

¶42

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to thc type of wo[k carried on in any cstal)lishment, by notification and subiect to such conditions, if any, as nlay be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

¶43

1 1. From a cr-rrsory reading of the above provision it is manifestly clear that if any ernployee, after acquiring clisability, is not suitable for the post he was holcling, could be shifted to sc:ne other post with the same scale and service benefits.

¶44

12 However, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, by relying on the Circular No.PD-19/2015, dated 03.06.2015, submitted that the Government has introduced a scheme^to provide employment to the spouse / child of medically unfit employees instead of providing alternative employment to themselves. Therefore, the petitioner was given the opportunity to exercise that option. rp-

¶45

rp-

¶46

¶47

13 The learned standing counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.42^dated 24.O2.2O1a ordered to exempt Telangana State Road Transport Corporation from the^provisions of Section 20 of the "Rights of Persons u,ith Disabilities Act, 2016" in respect of Drivers, Conductors and Mechanics^(including Artisans) subject to the condition that the TSRTC should continue to extend all the benefits i.e. Additional Monetary Benefit or compassionate appointment in case of retirements on medical invalidation.

¶48

L4 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was retired from service on medical^grounds on O7.08.2018. The respondent authorities, in accordance with the instructions issued in Circular No.PD-19/2OI5, dated 03.O6.2O15 and also in view of the directions isslred under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 24.O2.2O 1.a whereunder the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation was exempted from the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2OL6, have offered the petitioner either to chose additional monetar5z benefit amount in lieu of alternate post or employment to his dependents, subject to eligibility. The said G.O. has not been challenged. Therefore, I find no irregularity or illegality in the contentions advanced by the respondents. The respondents have followed the guidelines and instructions scrupulously, and issued the irnpugned proceedings, which, in my considered opinion does not warrant

¶49

¶50

any interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to mention that the petitior-rer is at liberty to approach the respondents to avail the benefits, if any, as contemplated under the Rules in voguc and in accordance with law.

¶51

15 In the light of the above discussion, the writ petit-ion fai ls and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶52

16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this 'arrit petition shall also stand dismissed.

¶53

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANLREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Cu SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, j

¶55

One CC to SRl. G V SHIVAJI,^{Advocate.[OPUC]}

¶56

One CC to SRl. THOOM^{SRINIVAS,SC FOR TSRTC.[OPUC]}

¶57

Two CD Copies

SB GJP CI\R

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712023

I .F- srA rr:
:rr
o2 [u$ ,*
't/ x//
"#
Dgg nr';C!.r,-Ij: ,:/

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.16049 of 2018

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

.}-rrt^'

P. Kanakaiah v. The Managing Director Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Kanakaiah v. The Managing Director Tsrtc

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

Sri v.Sambasiva Rao, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Narender Kumar Patel, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Afroze Siddiqui Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chinna Babu, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

V.Aravindh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp