IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22069 of 2009(C)
1. M.A.JOY. AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. A.ASOK KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.22069 of 2009-C
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010.
Judgment
1.The complaint of the petitioners is that they are
deprived of their entitlements under Section 4 of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protections of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. The said provision
prescribes non-discrimination in Government
employment. That is essentially a right conferred
on persons with disabilities. Therefore, in terms
of Sections 61 and 62, the Commissioner appointed
by the State Government is empowered to look into
complaints with respect to matters relating to
deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities; non-implementation of laws, rules,
bye-laws, regulations, executive orders,
guidelines or instructions made or issued by the
appropriate Governments and the local authorities
for the welfare and protection of rights of
WPC22069/09 -: 2 :-
persons with disabilities and take up the matter
with the appropriate authorities. Therefore,
notwithstanding the fact that the KSRTC, the
employer of the petitioners is a statutory body,
the Commissioner under the Act in hand will have
jurisdiction to decide on such complaints.
Therefore, I am clear in my mind that the
petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy
against the grievances advanced.
2.Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the
petitioners states that in certain other
litigations, the KSRTC had conceded to certain
directions issued by this Court and had
reconsidered their stand and the PSC’s
concurrence may also be an issue. In this
context, the learned counsel for the KSRTC states
that if the petitioners make appropriate
application seeking the benefit of the Act, that
would be considered in accordance with law.
Taking the aforesaid submissions into
WPC22069/09 -: 3 :-
consideration and without going into merits, the
impugned order is quashed to enable the
petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs from the
establishment in terms of what is recorded above.
The writ petition ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/0106