Filing of writ petition after six years deserves dismissal on the ground of laches.

Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.1999.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records.

3. The writ petitioner had alleged in paragraph-2 of his affidavit that he joined the service of the respondent transport corporation (appellant in this appeal) in the year 1981 as a driver. As on 25.10.1991 he had put more than 10 years of service. In paragraph-3 he has alleged that on 25.10.1991, while he was driving a bus bearing registration No. TPC 7221 towards Thethupatti, a lorry, which was coming behind the bus, tried to overtake the bus and in that process, there was an accident resulting in multiple injuries to the writ petitioner and the conductor of the bus and to some passengers. The writ petitioner was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 68 days and he was discharged without being completely cured. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent transport corporation did not take any steps to help him in medical treatment nor allowance was given to him. He had to spend his own money. It is alleged that the trial court has held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

4. The respondent transport corporation (appellant in this appeal) gave an alternative employment to the writ petitioner and posted him as a Cashier at Vedasandur Branch. It is alleged that the petitioner was compelled to join as a Driver once again, to which the petitioner pleaded inability, as the petitioner could not drive the vehicle, which he was driving before. The petitioner was referred to a medical board, which gave a report stating that he was medically unfit to drive a bus. It is alleged that the corporation instead of allowing the petitioner to continue to work as a Cashier dismissed him from service with effect from 17.8.93. It is alleged that subsequently, the respondent transport corporation appointed the writ petitioner as a Helper afresh. The writ petitioner made several representations to consider his past service for seniority and other service benefits and to give him pay protection, but to no avail. He was drawing salary of Rs.5200/- per month, but if pay protection is given, he would draw not less than Rs.7000/- per month. It is alleged that similarly placed persons were given continuity in service and pay protection. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 31.7.1999, and hence the writ petition.

5. The petitioner’s writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of the respondent was quashed with a direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as not having been terminated and give him pay protection in the employment in light duty, and pay the difference of scale of pay and also revise the present scale of pay by giving pay protection.

6. The appellant/ transport corporation has submitted that the writ petitioner was given medical treatment for 68 days as inpatient and the appellant gave him leave with wages for the entire period. Since the writ petitioner was not completely fit for the post of driver after the accident, the transport corporation referred him to a medical board, which gave the report dated 19.7.93 stating that the writ petitioner was not fit for the post of driver for heavy vehicles. The transport corporation issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner referring to the report of the medical board and directed the writ petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 11.8.1993 requesting the transport corporation to give him alternate employment with continuity of service. The transport corporation discharged him from service on medical grounds by order dated 17.8.93, but the transport corporation offered him alternative employment as per G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department dated 2.7.1981. The said G.O states tha