G.Vijaya Laxmi v. Sri. G.V. Ramana Rao,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.520 OF 2018 DATED :29.03.2019 Between :
G.Vijaya Laxmi W/o.Late Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 43 yrs, Conductor (E-152365), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana State.
..
Petitioner And Sri G.V.Ramana Rao, The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State & others.
.. Respondents This court made the following :
- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.520 OF 2018 ORDER :
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4332 of 2017 on 10.02.2017. 2.
W.P.No.4332 of 2017 was disposed of by order dated 10.02.2017 directing the respondent-Corporation to assess the medical status of petitioner and if it is found that the present health condition does not permit the petitioner to undertake the responsibility as Conductor, suitably accommodate in any other post or light duty/ground duty. Further direction was issued to complete the health assessment expeditiously and based on the medical report, to take appropriate decision by fixing three weeks time from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Alleging violation of the said directions, this contempt case is filed. 3.
In the counter affidavit deposed by Sri T.Sathaiah, the Depot Manager, Shadnagar Depot, Mahaboobnagar Region, it is stated that after the directions issued by this Court, petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Officer of TSRTC Dispensary, Mahaboobnagar. The Medical Officer examined the petitioner on 26.04.2017 and declared her as fit for the post of Conductor in A2 category and the same was informed to petitioner. Petitioner resumed her duties on 20.05.2017 and performed her duties on 21.05.2017. It appears petitioner made subsequent request for further medical examination and was examined wherein, she was again declared as unfit to the post of conductor in A2 category. Based on the medical report dated
- 3 - 27.06.2017, petitioner made representation on 29.06.2017 to provide alternative suitable job. Petitioner was advised to prefer appeal before Chief Medical Officer, against the decision of medical officer, but she did not choose to prefer appeal. However, it is deposed that petitioner was provided out of designated duties for one year, with a condition that she should take necessary treatment and complete medical assessment by the Chief Medical Officer of the Medical Board during the period. 4.
Heard Sri P.Venkateswer Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5.
As noticed from the order of this Court, the direction issued was to examine the fitness of petitioner and to take suitable decision. That exercise was already completed in April 2017. Though subsequently also petitioner was subjected to medical examination and further steps were taken, in so far as contempt proceedings are concerned by April 2017 itself the orders are complied. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents have disobeyed the orders of this Court warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.
6.
Contempt Case is accordingly closed. If petitioner has any grievance with reference to subsequent medical examination declaring her as unfit and not providing alternative employment, it is for the petitioner to work out her remedies. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 29th March, 2019 Rds