IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:27/9/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P.No.10316 of 2004
and
WPMP Nos.12033 and 12034 of 2004
E. Manoharan .. Petitioner
-vs-
The General Manager
Tamil Nerd State Transport
Corporation Ltd.
(Coimbatore Division)
37, Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore 43. .. Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated
therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai
For Respondent : Mr.Rajanish Pathiyil
:ORDER
With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up
for disposal.
2. The petitioner seeks the relief, which runs as follows:
“Issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the
respondent relating to the order made in Ref.No.1/G.10/5385/ TSTC/2002 dated
27.10.2003 and quashing the same and directing the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with all the benefits including providing light work to the
petitioner.”
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the respondent also. Affidavit in support of the petition is
perused.
4. As could be seen from the available materials and submissions
made, the petitioner on appointment, has been working as a Mechanic in the
respondent Transport Corporation. He suffered a heart attack in August 2000
and underwent a surgery on 8.2.2001. He filed an application for medical
reimbursement. The same was originally refused, but, subsequently ordered.
While so, there was a departmental enquiry for his absence from duty for a
period of 10 days from 24.1.2000. The petitioner produced the medical records
along with an application; but, no orders were passed on the same. Under such
circumstances, he came forward to file a writ application before this Court in
W.P.No.58 53/2002 for a direction to the respondent to allot some light work
for him in view of his health condition. The said writ application was
seriously objected to by the respondent Transport Corporation. There was a
direction given by this Court that the representation made by the petitioner
was to be considered within the time stipulated. Thereafter, the respondent
rejected the request by a communication dated 10.4.2002, which was
subsequently the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.No.23488 of 2002.
While disposing of the same, this Court made an observation, accepting the
plea of the management that there were several persons like the petitioner,
and the management was not in a position to provide light work due t o the
financial difficulties, and thus, an order of dismissal of the said writ
petition came to be passed. Thereafter, the management referred the matter to
the Medical Board, where a certificate was issued to the effect that he was
medically unfit to do the work, on the basis of which he was served with the
impugned order of retirement stating that he was medically invalidated.
Hence, the aggrieved petitioner has brought forth this writ application before
this Court.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that instead
of retiring him on the ground that he was medically invalidated, the
management should have given him a light work and should have given him some
other work, which he could do; but, his request was not considered by the
management, and hence, the impugned order has got to be set aside. In support
of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision
of the Supreme Court reported in (20 03) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 524 (KUNAL
SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA) and also a decision of this Court reported in 2004 –
III – LLJ 152 ( RAVICHANDRAN K. VS. M.T.C. LTD.).
6. In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel for
the respondent that in the instant case, originally, there was a writ petition
filed by the petitioner before this Court, seeking a direction to the
respondent management to give him a light work on the basis of his health
condition; that this Court gave a direction to the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner; that pursuant to the same, the respondent
has rejected the request of the petitioner; that thereafter, the petitioner
filed another writ petition against the said rejection, which was dismissed by
this Court; that subsequently, he was referred to the Medical Board, where a
certificate has been issued that he has been medically invalidated, and under
such circumstances, there was no option for the management to give him any
work, and hence, he has been served with the order of retirement, and in view
of these reasons, the order has got to be sustained.
7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner
was a Mechanic, and he underwent a heart surgery. He gave a representation to
the respondent for allotment of light work to him. On rejection of the same,
he moved this Court, and this Court made an observation, accepting the plea
made by the respondent Transport Corporation that light work could not be
given to him, in view of the fact that there were several persons like him and
in view of the financial difficulties also. Further, the petitioner has been
referred to the Medical Board, where a certificate has been issued that he was
medically invalidated. In such circumstances, the petitioner was served with
the impugned order. The Court is of the considered opinion that both the
decisions relied on by the petitioner’s Counsel are not applicable to the
present facts of the case. In the two decisions one by the Supreme Court and
the other by this Court, referred to above, one was a Police Constable and the
other was a Conductor, and both could be given substituted job. But, in the
instant case, the petitioner, who was a mechanic, has been found to be unfit
to do mechanical or manual work and medically invalidated, and on the earlier
occasion he sought a direction of this Court to the respondent to allot him
light work, and the same was denied by this Court in view of the plea of the
management that they are not in a position to provide light work to him due to
financial difficulties. Under such circumstances, the management cannot be
found fault with. The Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit
case where the relief asked for could be granted in favour of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, this writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
To:
The General Manager
Tamil Nerd State Transport
Corporation Ltd.
(Coimbatore Division)
37, Mettupalayam Road
Coimbatore 43.
nsv/