Back
2022 Supreme(Telangana) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ.
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, - Appellant
Versus
Y.Venkata Ramana – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.1121 of 2018
Decided on : 23-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N VASUDEVA REDDYSC FOR RTC
For the Respondent: A JAGAN
The benefit under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, is available only to those who suffer from disabilities mentioned in Section 2(i) of the Act.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - Persons with Disabilities - Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - 47 - Non-discrimination in Government employments - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, which prohibits establishments from dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The court highlighted the interpretation of the term 'disability' as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act and emphasized that the benefit under Section 47 is available only to those who suffer from disabilities mentioned in Section 2(i) of the Act. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017, which held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act shall be available only to those covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought to declare the action of the appellants in not providing alternative employment to the respondent-writ petitioners, found medically unfit, as contrary to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and in not paying them salary and emoluments from the date of their termination till alternative employment was provided to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act shall be available only to those covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act. The appellant-Corporation was directed to take a decision on individual grievances of the respondent-writ petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the order, and the respondent-writ petitioners were granted liberty to avail their remedies in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the action of the appellants in not providing alternative employment to the respondent-writ petitioners, found medically unfit, and not paying them salary and emoluments, was contrary to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017, which clarified that the benefit of Section 47 shall be available only to those covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was disposed of, holding that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act shall be available only to those covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act. The appellant-Corporation was directed to take a decision on individual grievances of the respondent-writ petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the order, and the respondent-writ petitioners were granted liberty to avail their remedies in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT:
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellants has informed this Court that identical writ appeals i.e., W.A.No.380 of 2017 and batch have been disposed of on 05.06.2017.
2. The common judgment passed in W.A.No.380 of 2017 and batch, dated 05.06.2017, is reproduced as under:-
“These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions wherein a mandamus was sought to declare the action of the appellants herein, in not providing alternative employment like Record Tracer/ADC/Booking Clerk/Announcer to the respondent-writ petitioners, though they were found medically unfit, as contrary to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”); and in not paying them salary and emoluments from the date of their termination till alternative employment was provided to them.
By the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge directed the appellants herein to examine each individual case and take necessary steps to implement the provisions of the Act, in the light of the order passed earlier, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After referring to a similar order, passed in W.A.No.1120 of 2015 and batch dated 29.01.2016, he allowed the writ petition.
The State Transport Corporation had earlier carried similar matters in appeal and, by order in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch dated 23.02.2017, the Supreme Court expressed its inability to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court, which had been followed in the impugned order, and approved the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Hawa Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Judgment in W.P.(C) No.7880 of 2011) and Airport Authority of India vs. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh (Judgment in L.P.A.No.1601 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005). The Supreme Court observed that, even though Section 2(i) of the Act may not cover every disability, the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporations covered even those employees who were not covered by Section 2(i) of the Act; thus those who were disabled, within the meaning of Section 2(i), were not without any benefit whatsoever; and they were thus entitled to invoke such schemes, but not Section 47 of the Act. The appeals of the Corporation were allowed, and it was held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act would be available only to those who were covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. The Supreme Court left it open to the appellant-Corporation to take a decision on the individual grievances of the employees, and granted liberty to the employees to avail their remedies in terms of the said judgment. Section 47 of the Act reads thus:
47. Non-discrimination in Government employments:-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
Under the first proviso to Section 47(1) of the Act if any employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he was holding, he can be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.
The word “disability” is de
