JUDGMENT :

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ghan Shyam Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'). It arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2019 in Writ-A No. 16403 of 2017, by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the orders dated 10.03.2015 and 25.03.2017 passed by the authorities of the 'corporation' and has further directed the latter to get the respondent Suresh Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-employee') medically examined and, if found unfit to drive a bus, to provide him an alternate employment.

3. Admittedly, the 'petitioner-employee' was engaged by the 'corporation' under a contract dated 16.06.2005, as a Bus Driver for a period of two years. The payment for the work done by the 'petitioner-employee' was also determined under the aforesaid contract. The contract itself was made renewable for one year. It is further an admitted case between the parties that the 'petitioner-employee' remained engaged till 2014. On 12.02.2014, while driving a bus of the 'corporation', he met with an accident wherein he suffered serious injuries to his leg and to his internal organs as well. On 24.07.2015, a medical certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, District Banda, certifying 40 percent permanent disability suffered by the 'petitioner-employee'.

4. In view of such permanent disability, the 'petitioner-employee' sought lighter work/duty to be assigned by the 'corporation'. It is his case, upon such duty being not assigned to him, he approached this Court in Writ-A No. 8189 of 2017 which was disposed by order dated 28.02.2017. The Court noted the stand taken by the 'corporation' of having rejected the claim made by the 'petitioner-employee', by an order dated 10.03.2015. However, the writ Court, at that stage itself, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the proper authority of the 'corporation' to pass an order on his claim to continue in service.

5. It is in compliance of that order, the Regional Manager of the 'corporation' passed another order dated 25.03.2017 and thus rejected the representation made by the 'petitioner-employee'. The said order became the subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No. 16403 of 2017. That writ petition first came to be dismissed by order dated 19.4.2017. Against that order, the 'petitioner-employee' filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 356 of 2017 which was allowed by order dated 03.07.2017 with the following observations:

"Although the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would insist that the provisions of the Act, 1995 would be applicable to permanent employee/employee appointed on substantive basis but having regard to the purpose for which the beneficial legislation has been incorporated i.e. for providing protection to an employee who suffers disability during the course of the employment, it has to be examined whether the benefits of the Act be extended/are applicable to contractual employees or not.

Since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment and it may require exchange of pleadings between the parties on the said issues, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th April, 2017 and to restore the writ petition to its original number. It is ordered accordingly.

Let the writ petition be heard and decided afresh in light of the observations made herein above. The present intra-court appeal is allowed subject to the observations made above.”

6. Upon that direction of remand, the order impugned in this appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the observation of the Div