IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7396 of 2004(E)
1. K.P.JOHN, KALLUMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSON WITH
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 7396 OF 2004 E
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s case in brief is as follows. The
petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2000 from the
respondent Corporation. While in service, the petitioner had
met with an accident and his right leg was amputated. Ext.P2
is the disability certificate. The petitioner relies on section 47
of the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which
reads as follows:
” 47. Non-discrimination in Government
employment –
(1) No establishment shall dispense with,
or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a
disability during his service:
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,
could be shifted to some other post with the same
pay scale and service benefits:
WPC.7396/04
: 2 :
Provided further 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.”
2. According to the petitioner, after the accident he
became unfit for the duty of driver. The respondent
Corporation was bound to post the petitioner in a suitable post
with the same pay scale and service benefits and in terms of
the second proviso to section 47(1) of the Act. If the
aforesaid was not possible, he ought to have been kept on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he
attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier, he
submits. But, in this case, it is not done, he complains. The
petitioner was paid full salary for the months of October to
November 1996 and half salary from December 1996 to July
1998. He preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd
respondent. Ext.P5 is a complaint filed by the petitioner under
section 62 of the Act before the 3rd respondent. Counter is
filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is, inter alia,
WPC.7396/04
: 3 :
stated that –
” 3. The petitioner was a driver in the service
of the KSRTC at Muvattupuzha depot. He was
transferred to Kasaragod for a period of one year
on administrative ground. While continuing in the
service at Kasaragod depot he met with an
accident on 4.8.1996 and sustained major injuries
and became disabled to perform any kind of duty in
the Corporation. In his representation it was
clearly stated that he has become permanently and
totally disabled. The State Medical Board has also
assessed his disability at 100%. Corporation has
sanctioned the following:
(a) Leave salary at full rate from 5.8.96 to
11.5.99 by sanctioning disability leave.
(b) Full salary for the period 12.5.97 to
3.6.97 by treating the period as duty.
(c) Salary for the period from 26.6.97 to
4.8.98 has been sanctioned by granting special
disability leave.
(d) Full pay leave has been sanctioned
from 5.8.98 to 29.8.98 and salary paid.
(e) Salary has been paid from 30.8.98 to
5.9.98 by granting HPL.
4. Thereafter the petitioner became totally
disabled and not attended in the office for any kind
of job till 24.4.2000. On 25.4.2000 he reported
WPC.7396/04
: 4 :
before the District Transport Officer, Muvattupuzha.
Corporation has taken humanitarian consideration
and permitted the petitioner to join duty and to
retire from service on 30.4.2000 on
superannuation. All the retirement benefits were
sanctioned to him in accordance with the Rules
existed then.”
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. The
learned Government Pleader submits that action was, in fact,
being taken on Ext.P5.
4. In view of the facts, as Ext.P5 is pending before the
statutory authority, who has to take a decision in accordance
with law on the same, there will be a direction to the 3rd
respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 in
accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to hear the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks