IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY or 2099» ..
BEFORE 2
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I.'_ICE fRI~:j)ijY::': »
WRIT PETITION No. 2§1«Q 0IQ1'«* 2o(i9 I(s;Ksm*c)
BETWEEN
s1DDALINGA::AH--._ I :
S/O.LATE§DAS.AI?PA'g _ '
AGE 49 '
R/A*i"l3"I~§'OfV1 Pjiiisxza
OORKERE =
TUMK_UR_TAI,U'Kf"& D PETI'I'1ONER
{BY Sm': EX/ICV BAsA=.(A1iAJU, ADV]
_ O _____ .. e
» 'mpfiV'MANAG1NG DIRECTOR
' -- OO.1O'K»S12f;*Q,'1.cENTRAL OFFICE
ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
.B.AN.GALORE -27.
2 I' _ DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
"KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION
TUMKUR -- 572101. . .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. B L SANJEEV, ADV)
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
INL
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT EATED “j”‘1is;2:.”2oo9
Issues BY THE R2 Vim: ANN–E; AND ETC. ‘ V. .
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR patgivisaaxmcatt IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS my, …coz’IRr 1vIAI;I«:_;_ i. *
FOLLOWENG: _ _
ORDER,
The petitioner, a in thf3V_ i”e–“spo”ndent»Roatl
Transport Corporation avtiisability, was
incapacitated to driver, made a
representa_tion_.,.,-‘fort-_ ‘of-…c;adre and for an
appointineiit ha’-igtiitablterpost in the Corporation,
which lwhenh “endorsement dt. 18.2.2009
An_n_exur°e~E, has p~reVs’e:r1ted this petition.
Aplncllitspiutably Section 47 of the Persons with
i [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
§*i,
was holding, could be shifted to some
the same pay scale and service
proviso to the Section states thatd_if pQsVs’ib}eVi’t0 V
adjust the employee against anypost,
on supernumerary post untilia’ s_uitabi–e’_VVApost is available
or he attains the age. of T_supe’ra:n.n’tiation, whichever is
eariier. ‘V
3. “l’L’1i_i..S;”‘i’1’t’)..$l:inf-dis-ptite”.;that the Disabilities Act
applielswlyto’ = Transport Corporation
and petitio_r1’e.rihavinglsuffered amputation of the left
lower limb, cannot”-discharge duties of a driver, as set
certificate Annexure~»C of the Medicai Board.
tjsstate that in terms of Section 47 of the
ll)-i.sab_iliti.esdAct, it is for the respondent–Road Transport
AA Corporation to accommodate the petitioner in a suitable
‘elemtpioyment while protecting his pay scale. In that view
= V. —of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for an alternate
suitable post, cannot be denied, while the respondefixte
Road Transport Corporation was fully justified in
rejecting the claim for change of cadre’:’–v:.Ijy:””v.Athe
endorsement impugned.
The writ petition is the 7
respondent~Road Transport Coi*p_oration to
petitioner’s claim for an alternate snitatniez post in terms
of Section 47 of the A-.I:)”i:sat~ii1itiie!s ;«xc:§§’e«.o %
Compliance =
S5/1;…
Iudge