Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
Monickaraj – Appellant
Versus
The General Manager (O&A), State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu)Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No. 18930 of 2016
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - Persons with Disabilities Act, 1955 - [Article 226, Writ Petition, Employment Dispute, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1955] - The court discussed the petitioner's employment dispute under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1955, and the failure of the respondents to provide alternative employment as directed by the court. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable under law and directed the respondents to treat the period from 17.08.2013 to 03.09.2014 as duty period and to pay salary for the said period and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a conductor in the respondent Corporation, suffered a disability while on duty and sought alternative employment under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1955. The respondents failed to provide alternative employment despite court directions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide alternative employment to the petitioner as directed, and the impugned order was unsustainable under law.
Issues: Failure to provide alternative employment, non-compliance with court directions, and unsustainable impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not at fault for not attending duties and that it was the responsibility of the respondents to provide alternative employment as per the court's directions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to treat the period from 17.08.2013 to 03.09.2014 as duty period, pay salary for the said period, and provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Memo No.003889/HR3/SETC TN /2014 dated 28.06.2016 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to treat the period of absence of the petitioner from 17.08.2013 till 03.09.2014 as duty period and to pay salary for the said period and to review his pay scale from the date when it was due and to grant the review benefits, weightage, increments and other service and monetary benefits due to him under law with interest within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
2.The petitioner worked as Conductor in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 07.04.1989. On 03.08.2009, while the petitioner was attending the duty in the Bus bound for Trichy from Nagercoil (Route No.125), he was not able to move move his right hand and leg suddenly at Nagercoil Vadaseri Bus stand. He was taken to nearby Vasantham Hospital, Nagercoil, by the officials of the respondent Corporation for treatment. The petitioner has undergone medical treatment for about 20 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was provided with light duty of time keeper at Vadasery bus stand that too after 59 days after his repeated representations and then the traffic regulation duty at Valliyoor Bus stand. But from 17.08.2013 onwards no duty was provided to him and that period was treated as leave with loss of pay.
3. The petitioner made a representation on 16.09.2013 to provide him a suitable alternative employment and to pay salary arrears and other monetary and service benefits from the date he was denied duty. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16568 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondents to provide alternative employment. This Court passed an order on 11.12.2013 directing the respondents to refer the petitioner to the medical board and based on the report of the medical board, the respondent was directed to take further action. After filing a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.936 of 2014, the petitioner was posted in the alternative post of Helper (Non ITI) from 04.09.2014.
4.It is also stated that no duty was given to the petitioner from 17.08.2013 to 03.09.2014 and the period in which the petitioner was under medical treatment has been treated as leave with loss of pay. It ought to have been treated as duty period. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to treat the period from 17.08.2013 to 03.09.2014 as the duty period and to provide all service and monetary benefits.
5.As the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.7229 of 2016. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 13.04.2016 directing the first respondent therein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2016 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent passed the present impugned order. As the impugned order is not a speaking order and the same was passed without assigning any reasons, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.
6. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court by order dated 11.12.2013 in W.P.No.16568 of 2013 directed the respondents to refer the petitioner to the medical board withi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondents to provide alternative employment to a disabled employee as directed by the court under the Persons with Disab....
Employer must ensure that an employee with a disability is treated fairly, including salary payment for an absence due to illness, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
A public employer is mandated to consider and dispose of an employee's representation regarding continuous alternative employment and service benefits for medically unfit personnel within a reasonabl....
The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness in administrative decisions regarding employment validation.
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 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.
An employer is statutorily obligated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to provide suitable alternative employment to an employee who suffers a disability, while ensuring contin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
