IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.1231 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN K. N. MARILINGE GOWDA S/O LATE M. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A KOTTURANA KOTTIGE DABBEGHATTA ROAD TURAVEKERE TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES K. H. ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT AND ENVIRONMENT) THE CHAIRMAN THE COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE POST, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES ... PETITIONER K. H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027.
3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-P TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 03.01.2019 SENT BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2013. After the period of probation, the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed and the petitioner has put in more than 14 years of service with the respondent-Corporation.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that on 31.03.2007, when the petitioner was on duty in one of the vehicles belonging to the Corporation, the vehicle met with an accident and suffered injuries, as a consequent he is unable to discharge his duties as driver, since he was suffering from “Non union of left clavicle fracture and left scapula fracture and IVDP of L4-5”. Subsequently, the petitioner met with an accident on 16.09.2017, wherein he suffered injuries on his left shoulder. The petitioner has therefore made a representation to the respondent Corporation requesting that the Medical Board has assesses the disability to 50%, therefore, he may be accommodated any other alternative/suitable post as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that in spite of the opinion of the Medical Board, the respondent Corporation has rejected the request of the petitioner and directed him to continue in the post where he was appointed.
4. On hearing the learned counsels and on going through the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may not fall under the provisions of the Act, but the petitioner may make a representation in terms of the Circular No.601 issued by the Rules Section of the respondent Corporation, which is dated 09.09.1987. In the said circular, it is provided that the Managing Director is authorized to consider re-categorisation of Class-III and IV employees who are incapacitated during the discharge of duties for suitable equivalent or lower job in exceptional and deserving cases in terms of Regulation-20(3) of KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. Granting such liberty to the petitioner, this petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE DL