IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
M.B. Jayadevaiah, S/o. Sri Basavanna - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director BMTC, Central Offices, K.H. Road, Bangalore-560027 - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 31943 Of 2014 (S-KSRTC)
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief after being downgraded from a driver to an office attender following a work-related accident resulting in disability.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Disabilities Act supersedes Circular No.681, protecting employees' pay upon downgrading due to disability.Issues:
Whether the petitioner's pay should be protected under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act despite reliance on Circular No.681 by the respondent.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the Disabilities Act mandates protection of pay for disabled employees upon downgrading, superseding any conflicting circulars or regulations.Final Decision:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the establishment order, directed restoration of petitioner's pay as a driver, and ordered payment of arrears and benefits within three months.ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner applicable to the post of driver which the petitioner was drawing as on 04.09.2002 and to pay the arrears of salary and extend all other consequential benefits, such as annual increments, revision of pay scales, grant of selection grade, promotion as Senior Driver, etc. to meet the ends of justice.
c. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the then BTS Division, KSRTC, during the year 1984. Upon formation of new Corporation-BMTC, the services of the petitioner stood assigned to the BMTC i.e., respondent herein. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as a driver, on 04.07.1999, the vehicle met with an accident wherein the petitioner sustained severe injuries viz., fracture of right transverse process of T6, T7 and T8, fracture of posterior part of right T7 Rib, fracture of middle column of T6 and anterior wedge compression fracture of T8 vertebra. The petitioner was admitted to St.John’s Medical College Hospital where he underwent major surgery and was absent from duty for a period of 11 months on account of hospitalization.
3. In view of the petitioner not being in a position to discharge his duties in the Road Transport Corporation as a driver, the petitioner sought for awardal of light work. In pursuance thereto, in July 2002, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Bangalore Medical College and Victoria Hospital for detailed medical examination and report.
4. In pursuance of the notice received from the Medical Board, the petitioner appeared before the Board. The Board examined the petitioner and a report was given to the respondent – Road Transport Corporation declaring that the petitioner is unfit to discharge his duties as a driver and recommended for light work.
5. In furtherance of the same, the Board exercising powers under Regulation 20 (3) of the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 (for short, ‘Regulations’) referred the request of the petitioner to the Committee. The Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for light work and by way of its report dated 13.08.2002 directed for change of cadre of the petitioner from driver to that of office attender.
6. This report was accepted and the competent authority, in terms of order dated 04.09.2002, the cadre of the petitioner was changed from driver to that of the office attender and assigned duties in a depot. The said order was passed in terms of the Circular No.681 dated 09.09.1987 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s pay was ordered to be refixed in the pay scale applicable to the office attender and the difference if any in the basic pay was directed to be treated as personal pay.
7. Disciplinary proceedings having been initiated as regards the accident, an enquiry being held, the Enquiry Officer reported that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and absolved him of any negligence.
8. The change of cadre of the petitioner having been done in terms of the Regulation 20 (3) of Regulations, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced retrospectively and it is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.01.2013, which was not considered. As such, the petitioner filed a W.P.No.31161/2013 when the counsel for the respondent agreed to consider
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory protection provided to employees acquiring disability during service under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, and th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 to protect the pay scale and rank of employees who acquire disability during their service.
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act mandates accommodation for employees acquiring disabilities, preventing termination during service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.