M.Nagarasu v. The Managing Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY M.Nagarasu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Ltd, TNSTC Head Office, No. 27 Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Ltd, Pudukkottai Region, Pillai Thaneer Panthal, Thirumayam Road, Pudukkottai ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide the petitioner permanent alternative employment with pay protection and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits on par with other employees, in the light of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and on the basis of the 1/5
medical board recommendations by considering the petitioners representation dated 06.11.2025 and provide him salary for the period in which duty was not given by the respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Vijaynivas For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to provide permanent alternative employment to the petitioner in terms of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
2. The petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent institution. In the year 2019, while cleaning a corporation bus, he fell from the bus and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Due to a head injury, he became disabled and no longer able to perform his duties as a driver. Hence, the petitioner is seeking alternative employment. The petitioner appeared before the Regional Medical Board, Government Medical College Hospital, on 15.10.2025. The Medical Board certified 2/5
that the petitioner is unfit to continue as a driver and recommended to assign light duty. In view of the said medical opinion, the petitioner seeks permanent alternative employment in the respondent institution.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is 48 years old and the injury sustained is a head injury. It is contended that there is a possibility of recovery from such injury. In such circumstances, the respondent is seeking liberty to review the medical condition of the petitioner and thereafter consider and pass appropriate orders. The said plea of the respondent is rejected.
4. Since the Regional Medical Board has already certified that the petitioner is unfit to continue as a driver and is fit only for light work, the respondent is bound to consider his case under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Therefore, the respondent is directed to consider and provide suitable permanent alternative light duty to the petitioner within a reasonable time frame. 3/5
5. However, the respondent is at liberty to review one in three years, that too after obtaining permission from the appropriate authorities.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
NCC : Yes / No 01.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am S.SRIMATHY , J.
am 4/5
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 01.04.2026 5/5