WP/34117/2011 of T.Lal Ram Vs AP STate Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notproviding alternative employment to the petitioner in terms of the “ThePersons with Disablement (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right FullParticipation) Act, 1995” (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently to direct the respondents to provide alternativeemployment to the petitioner in terms of the said Act duly granting allother consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initiallyappointed as Conductor in the 1[st] respondents Corporation on18.06.1998. While performing his duties on 27.01.2011, bus met withan accident and he sustained serious injuries, ultimately resulting inloss of vision in his left eye. Medical Board examined him and issuedproceedings dated 01.07.2011 declaring him as medically unfit toperform his duties as Conductor. Thereafter, as he lost his vision on account of accident, while in service, he made representations on 17.09.2011, 26.09.2011 and 01.12.2011to the respondents 2 and 3, Regional Manager and Depot Manager,respectively, requesting to provide him alternative employment. Butthe respondents did not consider the same and pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as perSection 47 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to alternativeemployment, as he was declared medically unfit to perform his dutiesas Conductor due to disability sustained by him during the course ofhis employment. To the effect that the employees, who were declared unfit, are entitled to alternative employment, theCorporation had issued circulars and therefore, the petitioner isentitled to alternative employment. Provisions contemplated underSection 47 of the Act are mandatory and binding on the respondents. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of thepetitioner for providing alternative employment in terms of the Section47 of the Act.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing forthe respondents Corporation would submit that as it is specificcontention of the petitioner that he made representations to therespondents authorities and the same are pending without passingany orders, therefore, they may be directed to consider the same andpass appropriate orders.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused thematerial on record.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that as he was declaredmedically unfit to perform his duties as Conductor, he made several representations to the authorities to provide himalternative employment in terms of the Section 47 of the Act and thesame are kept pending without passing any orders.

The learned counsel on either side have fairly submitted that therespondents may be directed to consider the representations stated tohave been made by the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of thecase, the respondents are directed to consider the representationsdated 17.09.2011, 26.09.2011 and 01.12.2011, stated to have beenmade by the petitioner, in terms of the Section 47 of the Act and thecirculars issued by the respondents, from time to time and passappropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of twomonths, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Date: 30.12.2011LSK

________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH