Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2200
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
M.B.JAYADEVAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 31943 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. V S NAIK.
For the Respondents: SMT. H R RENUKA.
The court ruled that pay protections under the Disabilities Act are paramount when downgrading a disabled employee's position due to acquired injuries.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Disabilities Act, 1995 - Change of cadre from driver to office attendant and its implications on pay - Employer must comply with Section 47, which mandates protection of pay for employees who acquire disabilities during service - The petitioner sustained injuries leading to disability and sought restoration of his pre-downgrade pay and benefits - The Court found that the downgrading violated the provisions of the Disabilities Act and accordingly quashed the impugned orders. (Paras 21 and 31)
(B) Employment Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities - The Court emphasized the non-discrimination principle and protections afforded to employees with disabilities under the Disabilities Act, insisting that any changes in employment conditions due to disability must not adversely impact pay or benefits. (Paras 20, 22, and 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a driver in the BMTC who suffered severe injuries in an accident and was declared unfit for driving, leading to a change in cadre from driver to office attendant.
Findings of Court:
The downgrading of the petitioner’s cadre and consequent reduction in pay was found to be legally impermissible under the Disabilities Act.
Issues: The main issues included whether the downgrading was lawful under the provisions of the Disabilities Act and whether the petitioner’s right to pay protection was violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the change in cadre must align with the protections afforded under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, ensuring that pay is preserved in case of disability.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner sustained injuries affecting job functionality. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against the downgrading process. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. disability protections under the law safeguard employee rights. (Para 14 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. legal implications of disability status concerning job protections. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. court ruled in favor of maintaining the petitioner’s pay rights. (Para 30 , 31) |
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the general establishment Order No.533/2002 vide Reference No. 
dated 04.09.2022, the true copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure-A and the office Order bearing Reference 
dated 15.03.2014 issued by the Second Respondent the, original of which is produced and marked as Annexure-'M' to the extent the Petitioner is aggrieved.
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 re- fixed 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
