Madras High Court
WP/34275/2024 of J.ELUMALAI Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 16 September 2026
WP No. 34275 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 34275 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011992142024}
J.Elumalai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Managing Director
Metropolitan Transport Corporation(Chennai)
Ltd
Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai -600 002.
2. The Dean,
Regional Medical Board,
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai-600 003.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, directing the First Respondent/Management to provide alternative job to the Petitioner within time bound as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.T.Kumaravijayan
For Respondent(s):
M/s. A. Vinothraj
Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi for R2
Special Government Pleader
WP No. 34275 of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking for an alternative employment as the petitioner is suffering from Coronary Artery Disease.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since 2017, he has been suffering from severe heart pain and found it difficult to perform the duty of the driver. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from his date of joining namely 01.12.2010 until he had Coronary Artery Disease, he has done his duty with unblemished record. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the Medical Board report dated 18.05.2018 and the subsequent report dated 20.09.2023, they have opined that the petitioner is unfit to be a driver duty. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that intermittently, the petitioner was given alternative duty thereafter, he was forced to drive the bus. He further submits that if the petitioner is compelled to drive the bus, it would not only affect the health of the petitioner but also would prejudice the interest of the public at large, who are travelling in the bus. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition.
3. The said contention was strongly objected by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and submitted that there are so many persons are already in the list for alternative duty, and that since the petitioner is not willing for surgery, he should only be treated as medically invalidated. If this court directs the respondent to give an alternative duty, then he will kept idle and there are no
WP No. 34275 of 2024
alternative duty as there are many other persons are in the alternative duty instead of their core duty. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
5. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent there is no serious dispute in respect of the health condition of the petitioner and the petitioner’s unfitness to become a driver has also been vindicated through the medical board report dated 18.05.2018 and latest report dated 20.09.2023. According to the medical board report, the petitioner become unfit to be a driver. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notwithstanding such report, if the petitioner is forced to drive the vehicle, it would not only endangers the health of the petitioner but also endangers the passengers.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that when the petitioner is having suffered coronary artery disease since 2017 and the Medical Board having given opinion that he is unfit to be a Driver, any compulsion upon the petitioner to drive the vehicle would be fallacious and would become against the interest of general public, those who are travelling in the public transport. Thus, this Court finds all justification to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent to provide an alternative job other than driver duty to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
WP No. 34275 of 2024
7. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR To
1. The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation(Chennai) Ltd, Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai -600 002.
2. The Dean, Regional Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai-600 003.
WP No. 34275 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 34275 of 2024 16-09-2026