K. Narayana v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 21978 OF 2020 Between:
K. Narayana, aged about 50 years, E850442, Shrarnik, TSRTC lvlancherial Depot, Adilabad District ...pETrroNER AND
1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Adilabad Region, Adilabad, Adilabad dist
3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mancherial Depot, Mancherial, Adilabad dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue wnt, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1't and 2nd respondents in not considering the petitioners representation dated 16-9-2020 for provide any suitable light duties in place of Shramic as per the existence circulars instructions of the corporation and Law as illegal and arbitrary, and further direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners representation dated 16-9-2020 and provide any suitable light duties at depot or bus stand in the interest of justice as per the existence circulars and law with all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide any light duties to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAVI BABU, SC FOR TSRTC The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.2t97 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.
2.
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not considering the petitioner's representation, dated 16.09.2020, for providing any suitable light duties in the place of Shramik, as per existence circular instructions of the Corporation and law, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.09.2O2O, with all consequential benefits.
3.
Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
4.
It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed ad Driver and while discharging duties as such, he met with an accident and he suffered "LT WRIST MEDIAN NERVE INJULY WITH RT ACLLR WITH STIFF RT KNEE.' He contended that due to the said injury, the Medical Board declared him as unfit for Driver post. He further contended that basing on the report of Medical Board, the 2"d respondent reinstated the petitioner as Shramik with the respondent-Corporation. He further contended that while discharging duties as Shramik, again he met with an accident and he suffered fracture injury to his right side shoulder and he was admitted in the hospital. He further
contended that due to the said injury, he is not in a position to discharge the duties as Shramik and therefore, he submitted a representation on 16.09.2O2O, requesting the respondents to provide less strenuous job. But, so far, the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated L6.O9.2O2O, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had contended that since the petitioner's representation, dated 16,O9.2O2O, is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel lor respective parties, is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 16.09.2O2O, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7 .
With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/.CH.VENKATESW U ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To,
1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, lt/lusheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Adilabad Region, Adilabad, Adilabad District. cr"U.
3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mancherial Depot, lVlancherial, Adilabad District
4. One CC to Sri P. Govinda Rajulu Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC]
6. Two CD Copies CHR NZ
HIGH COURT DATED:0411212020 tA 14:
s ( oo 10DECm * PAT * t) c
ORDER
W.P.No.21978 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS -. t L\V -\ cog'e( )k\{'4"'*