The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. M.Prem Kumar

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT APPEAL No.1494 of 2017 Date:10.10.2017 Between:

TSRTC, reptd by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and two others.

..... Appellants And:

M.Prem Kumar, S/o M.Gopal .....Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Mr. B.Mayur Reddy Standing Counsel for TSRTC Counsel for the respondents: Mr. A.Jagan The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order, dated 17.3.2016, in Writ Petition No.3533 of 2016, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition and directed the appellants to protect the pay scale of the respondent applicable to the post of Driver in the down graded post of Shramik by extending the benefit of Section-47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act').

The respondent was driver in the Telangana State Road Transportation (for short 'TSRTC'). On the ground that he has suffered certain disability, which according to the Corporation does not fall within the definition of "disability" under Section2(i) of the Act, he was declared as medically unfit for the said post. However, he was provided with alternative employment of Shramik by fixing the pay scale applicable to the said post. Invoking the benefit of Section-47 of the Act, the respondent filed the afore-mentioned Writ Petition and sought for protection of pay as applicable to the post of driver. Following the common judgment, dated 29.01.2016, in Writ Petition No.36337 of 2012 and batch, the learned single Judge allowed the afore-mentioned Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the TSRTC filed this Writ Appeal.

At the hearing, Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, placed reliance on the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch and submitted that in the said order, the Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby the judgment of the learned single judge rendered in a batch of cases was confirmed, holding that disability need not fall under Section-2 (i) of the Act for claiming the benefit under Section 47 of the Act. A perusal of this order shows that the Supreme Court has approved the view in Hawa Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India2 and held that the view taken by this Court in line with that taken in G.Muthu Vs.

Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited3 is not a correct view. Accordingly, while allowing the said Civil Appeals, the Supreme Court has left the appellant-Corporation free to take a decision on the individual grievances of the employees. The employees were also given liberty to avail their remedies in terms of the order.

Inasmuch as the Supreme Court while setting aside the judgments of this Court gave liberty to the employees to 1 2012 (3) LLJ 564 2 2005 (5) AD (Del.) 513 3 2006 (4) Mad.L.J. 1669

approach the Corporation which was directed to take appropriate decisions on the individual cases, we are of the opinion that it is not appropriate for us to decide whether the disability in the present case falls under Section 2 (i) of the Act or not. It is for the Corporation to take an informed decision, if necessary, by consulting medical experts on the nature of disabilities in respect of the individual employees. Therefore, as per the order of the Supreme Court, the respondent is permitted to make a detailed representation to the appellants. The appellants shall consider such representation, pass a detailed speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the same to the respondent.

Subject to the above, the impugned order of the learned single judge under appeal is set aside. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed As a sequel, WAMP.No.2773 of 2017 stands dismissed as infructuous.

___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY _______________________ JUSTICE K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI 10th October 2017 DR