Disposed

G. Surender Goud v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC7 Mar 2024WP/6104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to the TSRTC to provide alternative employment to a driver declared unfit due to medical defects under Disability Act, 2016. Court disposed of the petition at admission stage. Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation; Respondents to consider same within six weeks and communicate orders.

G. Surender Goud Vs The Telangana State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3301 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF IVIARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6104 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Surender Goud, S/o. Laxmaiah Age- 51^years, Occ:^{Ex-Driver,Rl/o.H.no-} 3-49, Boothpur village and Mandal, Mahbubnagar District,^Telangana.

¶9

G. Chaithra, D/o. G. Surender Goud Age. 24yearc,^{Occ:Unemployed,R/o.} H.no-3-49, Boothpur village and [t/andal, Ivlahbubnagar^{District,Telangana.}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman & tvlanaging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Regional Manager TSRTC, Mahbubnagar Region [/ahbubnagar^District.

¶14

3 The Depot Manager TSRTC, Mahbubnagar Depot, Mahbubnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate order or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent^{in not} considering^and not providing alternative employment to the 2nd Petitioner^{who is the daughter of} 1st Petitioner employee in pursuance Of the Circular No.^{PD19l2O15 dt} 03/06/2015 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of^{Article 14, 16 and 21 of} the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent^{to consider the} case of Petitioner for alternative employment in^pursuance Circular^No. PD19/201 5 dt 03/06/201 5.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} direct the Respondent to consider Petitioners' representation^{dl. 1411212019for}

¶19

appointment to any suitable post^jn pursuance of Circular No.PD19/2015 dt.03i06/2015 pending disposal of this writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.61O4 OF 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶27

India seeking the following relief

¶28

"...to issue an appropiate order or uit more particulartg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondent in not consideing and not prouiding alternatiue emplogment to the 2"d petitioner uho is the daughter of 1.t petitioner employee in pursuance of the Ciranlar No.PDL9/2O15 dt.03/06/2015 as illegal, orbitrary and unjust and uiolatiue of Article 14, 16 and 2i of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for alternatiue employment in pursuance Ciratlar No.PD 19/ 20 1 5, dt. 03/06/2015 and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court maA deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and pass..."

¶29

This Writ Petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties.

¶30

Heard Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent - Corporation in the year, 1997 and was posted to respondent No.4 - Depot. While so, during the process of periodical medical examination, he was

I I I I I I I

r,ffi\ ';:i

referred to Dispcr-rsary, wherein the Medical^{Ofltcer examined and} declared him unfit for the post of Driver uide^{M.C.No.OO2727,dated} 12.06.2018 due to neurological and bone^{defects 'Pott's spine with} Gibbus deformity with collapsed DS^{vertebra'disk bulge and the} same was confirmed by the Chief Medical^{Officer in the appeal.} Learned counsel further submits there is no^{other optionfor the} petitioner except to get alternative employment undcr^Disability Act, 2016 as a Record Tracer/ Security/ Shramik. Further,^the petitioner is ful1y qualified and eligible for the post of^Record Tracer/ Security/ Shramik, therefore, he made a^{representation,} dated 14. 12.2019 , to the Regional Manager,^{Mahaboobnagar,} TSRTC and the same is pending consideration.^{However, learned} counsel prays this Court to permit the^{petitioner to file fresh} representation before respondents as well as Regional^Manager, Mahabubnagar, TSRTC and the respondents as^well as^Regionai Manager, Mahabubnagar, TSRTC may be directed^{to considerthe} same and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that upon receipt of representatron^{from the} petitioner, thc respondents and the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, TSRTC will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

I l l

I I I I I I : :

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents as well as Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, TSRTC within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents and the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, TSRTC, are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks thereon and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

SD/-MOHD SANAU LLAH^ANFARI ASSISTANT REGIq'TRAR i/TRUE COPYiI d/ SECTION O}FICER

¶45

To, 1. The Vice Chairman and lvlanaging Director, The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad.

¶46

2- The Fiegional iManager TSRTC, Mahbubnagar^{Regionlvlahbubnag-arDistrict} 3. The De[ot lvlanageaTSRTC, Ir4ahbubnagar^{Depot, [/ahbubnagarDistrict.} 4. one CC to SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS,^{SC FORTSRTC} [OPUC]

¶47

Two CD Copies

¶48

¶49

SB b,\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710312024

R ltlE riT4f s
( o
,(
6
oo 2
2 2 ilAq mzf
C)
.},
t *{'
o€spa-cH cO

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.6104 of 2024

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

G. Surender Goud v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Surender Goud v. The 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

A. Kranthi Ramana Vs State of Telangana

G.Raju Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana

B.Brahmaiah, Vs The Govt of Telangana

Paasi Sukhlal Vs The Chairman and Managing Direction

Jajula Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana