Retirement of an employee on medical grounds is valid if the condition does not meet the definition of 'disability' under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT:

Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) appears for the appellants.

Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner was in regular service as a driver under the appellant Corporation. During periodical medical examination conducted by Medical Board at Tarnaka Hospital on 21.03.2017, he was declared unfit for the post of driver in A1 category and also unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards of TSRTC due to “Seizure Disorder”. The employer issued office order dated 10.04.2017 retiring him on medical grounds and at the same time holding him eligible for additional monetary benefit or employment to dependent as per Regulation 6A(4) of the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 and the circular such as Circular No.PD-19/2015 dated 03.06.2015 at Page 36, which provides for alternative employment to the dependent of such an employee who has been declared unfit for all category of posts in the Corporation or for receiving additional monetary benefit in terms of Regulation 6A(5)(a) or (b) of TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 as are applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the writ Court being aggrieved by his retirement on medical grounds. The learned writ Court was of the opinion that medical condition of the petitioner can be classified under the ‘locomotor’ disorder. Therefore, the impugned order of retirement was set aside. The respondents were directed to consider providing alternative light duty jobs to the petitioner in the respondent organization forthwith and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits notionally from the date of his discharge from duties till the date of his reinstatement. Appellant Corporation has preferred this appeal being aggrieved.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also taken note of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1995’) which applies to the case of the present petitioner as the order of his retirement was made on 10.04.2017 before coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with effect from 19.04.2017.

4. The Act of 1995 defines “disability” under Section 2 (i). Section 47 thereof provides restraint upon the establishment to dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The first proviso thereof provides that the employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The second proviso further provides 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. Sub-Section (2) provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability. In the present case, the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 do provide for retirement of an employee who is unfit to discharge the duties of the post held by him. Petitioner’s disease i.e., “Seizure Disorder” does not fall under any of the defined “disability” under Section 2 (i) of the Act of 1995. The learned writ Court treated it as a ‘Locomotor’ disability, which apparently is not applicable to the “Seizure Disorder”. ‘Locomotor’ disability can be said to one which affects the locomotor functions or movement of such a person. Since the petitioner was declared unfit for all categories, the circular prevalent in th