BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/12/2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.H.L.GOKHALE, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM W.A.(MD) No.147 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 ------------- 1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division - IV, Door No.51/1, S.No.216/2, Pillai Thanneer Pandal, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai. 2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division - IV, Pudukottai. ..Appellants/Respondents. Vs V.Babu, S/o.Velu Servai, No.22, Kuttaikulam Vadakarai, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ..Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order this Court dated 29.04.2008 passed in W.P.(MD)No.4108 of 2006. Prayer in WP(MD) No. 4108 of 2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to provide alternative employment to the petitioner from the date of removal from service on 21.08.2001 within stipulated time and further direct the respondents to pay all the consequential attendant benefits and all the arrears of salary with annual increments to the petitioner. ----------- !For Appellants ... Mr.M.Prakash ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.P.Muthupandian ---------- :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.M.Prakash, learned counsel in support of this appeal.
Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, learned counsel appears for the respondent.
2. The first respondent was working as a bus driver in the appellant –
Transport Corporation. He met with an accident while in service, and by the
impact of which his eye sight was affected. It was the responsibility of the
appellant – Transport Corporation to provide him an alternative employment in
view of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The appellant –
Transport Corporation did not take the necessary steps to provide alternative
employment to the respondent. But, on the contrary removed him from service on
21.08.2001. That led the respondent to file a writ petition, which came to be
allowed by a learned single Judge by his order dated 29.04.02008. While passing
that order, the learned single Judge observed, considering the facts of the case
and also considering the judgment (which the learned Judge referred to in the
case of G.Muthu Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Ltd. Reported in 2006 (5) CTC 413), he was inclined to direct the
respondents (appellants herein) to provide an alternative employment to the
petitioner (respondent herein) with all attendant benefits within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
3. This eight weeks period would expire on 29.06.2008. The appellant –
Transport Corporation did not take any steps to provide alternative employment
immediately. He was given alternative employment only on 22.03.2009. The
respondent is, therefore, claiming the wages for the entire period.
4. The submission of Mr.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant –
Transport Corporation is that during the intervening period the respondent has
not worked, and therefore, he should not be directed to be paid with full wages.
5. It is true that one cannot direct full wages when the person concerned
has not worked for a particular period. At the same time, it is to be noted that
this is not a situation for which the respondent is in any way responsible. The
appellant – Transport Corporation did not take steps to give him alternative
employment in spite of a clear provision in Section 47 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995. Even after the passing of the order by the learned single Judge on
29.04.2008, the appellant took nearly an year to afford alternative employment
namely., that of a helper in the appellant – Transport Corporation.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in any case the
respondent should be given continuity in service. His submission is quite
legitimate in the facts of the present case. Therefore, we modify the order
passed by the learned single Judge to state that the respondent shall be paid
his full backwages from 01.07.2008, and he shall be treated as if in service
through out the intervening period i.e., from his removal on 21.08.2001. We are
making it clear so that as and when the respondent retires from service, his
retirement benefits will be calculated in that manner. The arrears of pay
remaining from 01.07.2008 shall be paid to him within a period of four weeks
7.With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam Division – IV,
Door No.51/1, S.No.216/2,
Pillai Thanneer Pandal,
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Division – IV,