IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.843/2017(S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
B. G. ROOPA, W/O PANKAJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.18, 6TH MAIN, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, H V R LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC CENTRAL DIVISION(VOLVO), SUBHASH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.08.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-T TO THIS W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, who was appointed as conductor under the respondents on 22.6.2000 is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 11.8.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-T and also a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accommodate her to any other alternative suitable post (light work) permanently in the respondents- Corporation in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with pay protection by following the Circular dated 26.3.2014 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-L by considering the disability certificate dated 4.6.2015 issued by the Medical Board vide Annexure-R.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a conductor on 22.6.2000. She was brought on probation and confirmed and she was deputed to work at Depot No.7 of the 2nd respondent- Corporation. She has put in more than 14 years of continuous service in the respondent-Corporation. On 27.9.2007, when she was discharging her duty at night shift on route No.63A, she met with an accident due to which she fell down unconsciously inside the bus and sustained injuries to her right hand, resulting in restriction of movement of her right hand and right leg. She was immediately shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru wherein she took treatment as an in-patient as well as out-patient. The doctors, who treated her, have advised her to do light work in the Corporation and hence, she is suffering from disability with ‘Cervical Disc Lesion C5-6’.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after discharge from hospital, initially she was accommodated with light work and subsequently it was restored. Hence, she made a representation on 7.5.2008 to the Chief Labour and Welfare Officer of the respondents-Corporation requesting to accommodate her light work as per the advise given by the doctors vide Annexure-A. She had also produced true copies of the MRI Cervical Spine dated 3.5.2008, MRI Cervical Spine date 9.6.2008 and discharge summary dated 10.6.2008 to show that she is suffering ‘Cervical Disc Lesion C5-6’. Inspite of the same, the authorities have issued an endorsement dated 11.8.2016 insisting her to get second opinion from the Medical Board. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief as prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent dated 11.8.2016 is illegal and erroneous. He further contended that when there is no dispute that the petitioner was suffering from ‘Cervical Disc Lesion C5-6’, due to which, she is not in a position to discharge her duties as a Conductor and her disability is assessed at 42% by the Medical Board and the doctors, who treated her have recommended for light work. He further contended that at the inception, the respondents have accommodated her light work and subsequently they have insisted her to produce the second opinion from the Medical Board by the impugned endorsement dated 11.8.2016, which is unsustainable and contrary to the medical evidence on record. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned endorsement by allowing the writ petition as prayed for.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents Smt. H.R. Renuka, submits that though the endorsement was issued to the respondent on 11.8.2016, after considering her representation dated 9.2.2016 requested the petitioner to produce second opinion from the Medical Board and inspite of granting such time, she has not shown any inclination to produce such document. She further contended that it is for the petitioner to produce second opinion from the Medical Board in order to establish that she is suffering from disability as alleged in the writ petition. In the absence of any document, the authorities were justified in passing the impugned order.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 22.6.2000 and during the course of employment, she met with an accident and suffered ‘Cervical Disc Lesion C5-6’ as per the medical certificate issued by the concerned doctor, who treated her as per Annexures-B, C and D. It is the specific case of the petitioner that initially considering the said material, she was accommodated with light work in the Corporation and subsequently, the impugned endorsement came to be issued insisting second opinion from the Medical Board. It is also not in dispute that after the impugned endorsement, the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate by the competent authority (Medical Board) in the prescribed form. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the disability certificate issued by the Board dated 4.6.2016 and the endorsement dated 11.8.2016, subsequent to which the petitioner has not produced any such medical certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format.
8. In the absence of any medical certificate, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Hence, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, it is suffice to permit the petitioner to produce the medical certificate in the prescribed form before the respondents within a period of four weeks and on such production, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 within a period of six weeks and in accordance with law..
9. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-