Disposed

V R M Reddy, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/32423/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition challenging the failure to consider a representation for alternative employment, the Court directed the Transport Corporation to examine the petitioner's claim for light duties under Circular No. PD-09/2009 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Corporation directed to consider petitioner's representation for alternative employment within three months.

V R M Reddy, Vs Telangana State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:32423 0F 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

V R M REDDY. aoed about 53 years, Conductor, E 318543, TSRTC, Husnabad depot, Husnabad, liarimnagar District.

¶9

AND

¶10

.....PET!T|ONER

¶11

Telangana state Road rransport corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Itrlusheerabad, Hydera bad.

¶12

2 The Regionql lr4anager, TSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karininagar, Karimnagar District.

¶13

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Husnabad depot, Husnabad, Karimnagar District.

¶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 writ, order or directions more in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to provide arternative emproyment as Record Tracer as per the circular No pD 09/2009, dated 04-03-2009 or to provide any light duties in place of conductor by considering the disability MALUNIoN LEFT TIBIA and injuries to Right Leg with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice as otherwise, petitioner may put irreparable loss and hardship.

¶16

:!.

¶17

l.A.NO: 10F2016 WPMP. NO:40115 oF 2016)

¶18

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider craim of the petitioner for providing Record Tracer post as per the Circular NO pD 09/2009, dated 04_03_2009.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.32423 of 2O16

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶26

"...to issue writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to provide alternative employment as Record Tracer as per the Circular No.PD-09/2009, dated 04.03.2009 or to provide any light duties in place of conductor by considering the disability MALUNION LEF"I TIBIA and injuries to Right t.eg with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders in the interest of^justice as otherwise petitioner may put irreparable loss and hardship..."

¶27

Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation and during his service, the petitioner was sent to medical examination. After condlrcting medical examination he was declared medically unfit for the post of driver due to Malunion Left Tibia and pursuant to the recornmendation made by the medical officer, respondent No.2 issued order dated O2.Oa.2Ol3 providing alternative employment as Conciuctor and posted at respondent No.3 depot

¶29

¶30

During the course of conducting the service^as conductor, he mct with an accident and^{his right1eg was} fractured and caused multiple^{seriousinjuries, due to the} same the petitioner made representation^{to respondent} Corporation on 15.O4.2O16 requesting to^{provide suitable} light duties in place of conductor by^{consideringthe} circular No.PD-O9/2OO9 dated^{04.O3.2OO9 issued by} respondent Corporation. In^{spite of thepe tilioner} approaching respondent Corporation,^{they have not taken} any decision and the petitioner^{is unable to dischrrgehis} duties in the post of conductor^{and recluestedthis Court} to direct the respondent Corporation^{tocorrsider the} representations submitted by^{the pctitioteer.}

¶31

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel^appearingon behalf of respondents, submits that^{respondents may be} gralted reasonable time to consider the^{representation} submitted by the^petitioner.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions^{made by} respective parties, respondent Corporation^{is directed to} consider the representation submitted^{by the petitioner} dated 15.O4.2016 to provide alternative employment^as Record Tracer or any other light duties in^{place of} conductor !y taking into consideration his^health

¶33

¶34

¶35

condition and also Circular No.PD-09/2009 dated O4.O3.2OO9 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

With the above dire<:tions, this writ petil:ion 1S disposed of. No costs.

¶37

As a sequel, miscellanr:ous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

¶39

¶40

ASs,srAiiif"rilli{i* //TRUECOPY// q0.--'SECTION OFFICER

¶41

1 The.Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶42

2 The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karininagar, Karimnagar District.

¶43

3 The Depot Manaoer. TSRTC, Husnabad depot, Husnabad, Karimnagar District.'

¶44

4 One CC to Sri P.Govinda Raiulu, Advocate tOpUCl 5 One CC to Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocrt" l'OpUCi 6 Two CD Copies\ k

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110912023

ORDER

WP.No.32423 of 201G

1 at". ,1
q s ,
Frw SS<br>&o
$

J H

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶54

V R M Reddy, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V R M Reddy, v. Telangana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Satyanarayana and 3 Othrs Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Raghubir Narayan, Adilabad Dist.

R. Ramchandraiah Vs Sri Mahesh Dattu Akka

K. Mallesham, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

K. Janju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Asad, E 209300, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation