Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, G. SHYAM PRASAD, JJ.
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director & Others – Appellant
Versus
P. Ramesh – Respondent
W.A. Nos.1120, 1122, 1128, 1130, 1131 of 2015, 55, 56, 74, 85, 224, 226, 230, 246, 412, 434, 500, 501, 515, 517, 521, 572, 582, 583, 584, 585, 592, 594, 598, 599, 604, 610, 611, 614, 617, 618, 627, 628, 631, 656, 663, 664, 665, 666, 668, 669, 671, 672, 679, 680, 683, 684, 685, 686, 720, 725, 729, 756, 769, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 780, 800, 803 of 2016 & W.A. (SR) Nos.1469, 46592, 46681, 47747, 56640, 56805, 90953, 91031, 91049, 91145, 91170, 91186, 91199, 91212, 91220, 91231, 91253 of 2016
Decided On : 08-09-2016
For the Appellants:G. Vidya Sagar, Senior Counsel, appearing for B. Mayur Reddy, Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General, S.V. Ramana, Standing Counsel for A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.
For the Respondent:A. Jagan, S.M. Subhan, T.S. Venkata Ramana, P. Govinda Rajulu, P. Venkateswar Rao, G. Rajesh, Naraparaju Avaneesh, A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, S.D. Gowd, D. Ramakrishna, Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, K. Udaya Sri, Mr. N. Mukunda Reddy Ravi, Mohd. Ghouseuddin, Advocates.
Headnote:
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporations, who were declared medically unfit to continue as Drivers – Though reasons may have slightly varied in their Judgments/Orders, views of learned Judges are concurrent with each other on the interpretation of S. 47 of Persons with Act 1995 – To put it briefly, all judges held that for being entitled to benefits under Section 47 of Act, acquired disability of an employee need not necessarily fall within the definition of disability under Section 2(i) and that irrespective of the nature of disability acquired by an employee, if such disability led to his being declared as not fit to continue in post which he was holding prior to his acquiring disability, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of Act – Respondents have joined erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as Drivers – Consequent on bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and creation of State of Telangana, APSRTC was divided into two Corporations, one each for States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – As part of procedure, during medical examination of the respondents by the Medical Board, they were found to have acquired disabilities such as Defective Distant Vision, CVD RT Hemiparesis, mal-union of Left Tibia, Recurrentia Seizures (Convulsions), Seizure Disorder, Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder, Colour Blindness, to name a few – Service conditions of the respondents-Drivers are governed by extant service Regulations and Circulars issued from time to time by the appellants-Corporation – Held, Benefits, if any, received by any of disabled drivers who are parties to this litigation and contingency of raising future claims by disabled drivers who have already been discontinued, received the monetary compensation as per Corporations Regulations and Circulars and did not move the Courts so far – As regards (a) supra, as Section 47 of Act affords full protection to disabled drivers, to confer benefits on them under Regulations/Circulars as well as under Section 47, amounts to unjust enrichment – Therefore, Corporations are entitled to recover benefits already received by disabled drivers in terms of Regulations/Circulars by deducting from the salaries payable to them consequent upon their reinstatement by virtue of this judgment, in easy instalments not exceeding Rs.5,000/- per month – If Corporations will not be able to recover entire amounts through this process before any of the disabled drivers reaching their superannuation, they can recover the balance amounts from their retirement benefits – Qua the category of disabled drivers in (b) supra, we direct that those disabled drivers who have already received the benefits under Regulations/Circulars and have not approached this Court so far claiming protection under Section 47 of Act, are not entitled to seek relief based on this judgment, on principle of laches and in order to prevent entertainment of stale claims and the settled claims from being unsettled – Appeals dismissed. (Para 43)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
Introduction:
1. This batch of Writ Appeals arise out of the Judgments of different learned single Judges allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the Drivers of the Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporations, who were declared medically unfit to continue as Drivers. Though reasons may have slightly varied in their Judgments/Orders, the views of the learned Judges are concurrent with each other on the interpretation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, (for short "the Act"). To put it briefly, all the learned Judges held that for being entitled to the benefits under Section 47 of the Act, the acquired disability of an employee need not necessarily fall within the definition of disability under Section 2(i) and that irrespective of the nature of disability acquired by an employee, if such disability led to his being declared as not fit to continue in the post which he was holding prior to his acquiring the disability, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Act.
The background facts:
2. The respondents have joined the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as Drivers. Consequent on the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and creation of the State of Telangana, the APSRTC was divided into two Corporations, one each for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. As a part of the procedure, during the medical examination of the respondents by the Medical Board, they were found to have acquired disabilities such as Defective Distant Vision, CVD RT Hemiparesis, mal-union of Left Tibia, Recurrentia Seizures (Convulsions), Seizure Disorder, Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder, Colour Blindness, to name a few. It is the common case of the parties that none of these disabilities finds a mention under the provisions of the Act. The service conditions of the respondents-Drivers are governed by the extant service Regulations and Circulars issued from time to time by the appellants-Corporation. As per the procedure being followed by the appellants-Corporations, the medically declared unfit Drivers are being provided with alternative employment, such as Conductors, Record Tracers or Shramiks, subject to their possessing the educational qualifications and physical fitness and in case they are unwilling to work in the alternative Posts offered based on the recommendations of the Medical Board, they are being retired from service on medical grounds and paid additional monetary benefit under Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the APSRTC (Service) Regulations 1964, upon obtaining their willingness vide Circular No.TD-15/2015, dated 14-5-2015 of the APSRTC.
Not being satisfied with the aforementioned measures taken by the appellants-Corporations, the medically unfit Drivers have requested both the Corporations to extend to them all the benefits as are made available under Section 47 of the Act. As these requests were declined by both the Corporations, the respondents have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Substratum of the respondents case:
3. The respondents pleaded before the learned single Judges that the Act is a piece of benevolent Legislation which protects every employee who acquired disability during the course of employment and that therefore the appellants cannot dispense with their services or reduce their ranks merely because the disability they have acquired rendered them unsuitable for the Posts they were holding, irrespective of whether such disability falls within the enumerated disabilities under Section 2(i) of the Act or not. In fortification of their plea, the respondents have placed heavy reliance on Section 47 of the Act, aided by case law, which we shall discuss in due course.
Stand of the appellants:
4. Both the appellants-Corporations in unison have pleaded that Section 2(i) of
