WP/15905/2024 of MURUGAN Vs THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a conductor in the respondent corporation and he has been doing his duty with unblemished track record. While so, on 21.01.2020, while he was on duty, the bus in which he was working collided with the lorry and the petitioner

WP No. 15905 of 2024

sustained head injury. After having treatment at NIHMAS hospital, Bangalore, and after recuperation, he reported to duty. Thereafter, he was referred to Medical Board and the Medical Board opined that he was unfit to discharge the conductor duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the Regional Medical Board's opinion, he has got 75% locomotor disability. In spite of the above fact, he was provided alternative employment only for three months, namely between 22.06.2022 to 22.09.2022 and thereafter, they directed the petitioner to resume his conductor duty. Though the petitioner requests for an alternative duty, they did not assign any duty to the petitioner. Hence, he submitted a representation on 26.12.2023 to direct the respondents to provide alternative employment with continuity of services, pay protection, arrears of salary and other attendant benefits.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that since 2025, he has been performing duty as a conductor and that he was again referred to Medical Board and as per the Medical Board report dated 01.03.2024, the petitioner has weakness in all four limbs of 75%, his IQ level is 80%, SQ level is 72% and the overall disability is 25%. However, the Medical Board sustained the decision that he is unfit for a conductor job and the Medical Board directed to give an alternative light job and furthermore, the Medical Board has also requested the Department to send the petitioner for reassessment. It is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that though the respondent

WP No. 15905 of 2024

offered alternative work, the petitioner did not join duty and that he informed the respondent that he would rejoin only as per the direction of the Court. He would contend that the department is ready and willing to offer alternative duty and in fact, he has been doing conductor work on his own in spite of providing an alternative duty. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. The factual position is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner is suffering from serious ailment and he is unfit to be a Conductor. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 47 of the Person With Disability (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955, the respondent cannot dispense with or reduce the rank of the employee on account of his disability. The employer would assume a duty of loco-parentis, as long as the petitioner could do some alternative work, unless he being medically invalidated on account of his serious ailment. Only when the employer act with sympathy coupled with succour the employee could discharge his duty effectively and in a dignified manner.

5. In the present case, having the fact that petitioner is having disability to the extent could not pursue his Conductor duty, as per Section 47 of the Person

WP No. 15905 of 2024

With Disability (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955, he is entitled to have an alternative duty according to his physical and functional conditions. In this case, though the Standing Counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner did not resume duty after a period of three months, namely after 23.09.2022, there are no records available before this Court to substantiate the same. If really the petitioner was absent for such period, the respondent must have initiated some disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, there is a complete silence on the part of the respondent in respect of the above context.

6. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the alleged absent period after 23.09.2022 cannot be construed as an unauthorized absence, but only construed as a refusal to assign duty. But at the same time, there is also a delay on the part of the respondent in approaching this Court. Therefore, in order to strike out a balance between the employer and employee, though this Court directs the respondents to allot a light duty, would also direct the respondents to pay 50% of the arrears of salary from 23.09.2022 till the petitioner was reinstated during 2025 and that the petitioner is also eligible for other attendant benefits such as continuity of service and pay protection in accordance with the law.

WP No. 15905 of 2024

7. Before we close this matter, this Court would makes it clear that according to the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as on today, the petitioner is functioning as a Conductor. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allot light duty to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order until the Medical Board rejects his representation for light duty.

8. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes NR To

1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd, Rep By Managing Director, Villupuram.

2. The General Manager The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Ltd, Villupuram.

WP No. 15905 of 2024

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 15905 of 2024 25-09-2026