IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR W.P. No.1803/2016 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
B. ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT 1ST WARD, JOISARAKERI OPPOSITE TO PUNDI KOTRABASAPPA HOUSE HARAPANAHALLI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.) AND:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 2 THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE – 583 131 ...PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.10.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashment of the impugned endorsement No.KARASA/DAVI/ SIBBANDHI/C-2/4083/14- 15 dated 15.10.2014 vide Annexure-F and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to pay vehicle allowance to the petitioner from the date on which he was acquired disability and continue to pay the same under the facts and circumstances.
3. The factual matrix of this petition are as under:
The petitioner was appointed as ‘Driver’ by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1988. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner on probation, his appointment was confirmed and he was deputed to work at Harapanahalli Depot [now OOD] in the Respondent No.2- Corporation. The petitioner has put in service as driver for more than 27 years under the Respondent-Corporation.
It is further stated in the petition that on 12.10. 2010, when the petitioner was discharging his duties as a driver in vehicle bearing No.F-1002 route No.1 AB from Harihara to Bengaluru at about 5.50 pm, on the outskirts of Chitradurga Town near Nymakal Garage, a lorry which was coming back side of the vehicle dashed the petitioner’s vehicle, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries and suffered from “post traumatic optic atropy”. The disability is assessed at 45.5% and the said disability is permanent in nature. These are all the contentions taken up in this writ petition seeking relief as stated in the prayer column.
4. Subsequent to obtaining the disability certificates from the competent Medical Board, the Respondent No.2 has constituted a Committee to consider the case relating to disabled employees and on 20.05.2013, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee to consider his case for accommodating him for light work. Subsequent to thorough examination of the petitioner, the Committee decided to accommodate light work to him in the Respondent No.2-Corporation. The copy of the proceedings of the Committee held on 20.05.2013 is produced by him for reference as Annexure-C. The copy of the circular dated 8.7.2014 is produced as Annexure-D. The copy of the representation made by him on 16.09.2014 is also produced as Annexure-E.
5. It is relevant to record that the Respondent No.2 inspite of considering the disability factor of the petitioner, has issued endorsement dated 15.10.2014 to him under which his request has been rejected by the Respondent No.2- Corporation on the ground that he suffered only 10% disability and he is not entitled to vehicle allowance as per circular dated 8.7.2014. For the purpose of reference under this petition, petitioner has produced copy of the endorsement dated 15.10.2014 as Annexure-F.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the contents of Annexures-A and B of the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board; that it clearly indicates that the petitioner is suffering from orthopedic disability at 10% and ophthalinic disability at 40%, the total combined disability at 45.5%. Therefore, there is requirement to consider the case of disability for the vehicle allowance to the disabled employees as he is entitled for such benefit as per circular dated 16.09.2014. Therefore, in this petition, petitioner is seeking for quashment of endorsement dated 15.10.2014 vide Annexure-F issued by the respondent-Corporation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed objection statement to the writ petition, wherein it is contended that merely because of issuance of report by the Medical Board as at Annexures-A & B, it cannot be considered for the relief of vehicle allowance as sought for unless there is some specific opinion issued by the Medical Board. But, the petitioner who is said to have suffered 10% disability, is not entitled for the benefit of circular dated 15.09.2014.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the petitioner may be referred to the Medical Board further to ascertain the disability factor as urged in the writ petition.
9. Keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for seeking relief to the extent of vehicle allowance, it is appropriate that the petitioner shall be referred to further examination by the Medical Board at Bengaluru in accordance with certain guidelines as well as Rules relating to the subject. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Medical Board is functioning at Victoria Hospital at Bengaluru. The submission is placed on record.
10. However, the petitioner shall be referred to the Medical Board at Bengaluru in accordance with the rules and guidelines.
11. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The petition is hereby allowed in part.
[ii] The petitioner is referred for further examination to the Medical Board at Bengaluru and also submitting the report by the Medical Board within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-