HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A. No. 571 of 2014 DATE: 22.04.2014 Between:
1. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
2. Depot Manager
3. Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director ..
Appellants and K.Kalidas . Respondent JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2013 in W.P. No. 8042 of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court directing the appellants-APSRTC to pay salary to the respondent-driver for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006.
The admitted facts are that the respondent herein joined the services of the A.P.S.R.T.C. as Grade-I Driver. While so, as he was found medically unfit to work as Driver, the Depot Manager issued Office Order No.P1/469(2)/2001-PPM, dated 29.08.2001 whereby the respondent was forced to go on medical leave. Then, the respondent made a representation dated 28.09.2001 requesting the authorities to provide alternative employment in the Corporation. Inasmuch as his representation was not considered, the respondent filed W.P.No. 804 of 2002, and the learned Single Judge of this Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent by providing him alternative employment. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the appellants appointed the respondent as Sramik on 16.03.2006. Subsequently, the respondent, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.06.2010 but his salary from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 was not paid. Then, the respondent filed W.P.No. 8042 of 2002 seeking a direction to the appellants to pay wages for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006. This Court, by the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, directed the appellants-Corporation to pay salary for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-Corporation have preferred the present writ appeal.
The learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously contended that the respondent-workman has never appeared before the medical authorities, Board and Committee for the benefit of Provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”) and this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the respondent-employee submits that as per Section 47 of the Act, soon after an employee is declared medically unfit, it is obligatory on the part of the appellants to provide alternative employment without disturbance to his salary, but the Corporation though provided alternative employment, has failed to pay salary to the respondent, as such, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the appellants may be directed to pay salary to the respondent for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 during which the writ petitioner was forced to go on medical leave by virtue of the Office Order dated 29.08.2001 issued by the Depot Manager.
Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities?
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under appeal.
The undisputed facts are that immediately after joining the services as Driver in the Corporation when the respondent-employee was found medically unfit, he was forced to go on medical leave from 29.08.2001 onwards as is evident from the Order of the 2nd appellant - Depot Manager, and in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.804 of 2002 which was instituted by the respondent-employee, the appellants-Corporation reemployed the respondent as Sramik on 16.03.2006. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.06.2010. So far as the contention put forth by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. is concerned, once the respondent was found medically unfit in service as Driver, the Corporation, as a measure of fulfilling its obligation by operation of Section 47 of the Act and also in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.804 of 2002, reengaged the respondent as Sramik. Further, when the Corporation reemployed the respondent as Sramik, the same provision of law also casts an obligation on the Corporation to pay salary to the respondent for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 as he was deemed to be in continous service, but he has not been paid salary for that period, and therefore, a direction was also given to the appellants to pay salary to him, and these aspects were well-considered by the learned Single Judge as is evident from the impugned order.
From a careful perusal of the submissions made by both the learned counsel in this appeal, the fact that the respondent has not been paid salary during the interregnum from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006, has remained uncontroverted. It is not justifiable on the part of the Corporation to have denied the salary of the respondent for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006, particularly when an interlocutory application i.e. W.P.M.P.No.29122 of 2008 in W.P.No. 8042 of 2002 filed by the respondent seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition restricting it to a direction to the Corporation to pay him salary for the said period, was allowed. As a matter of fact, no counter affidavit denying payment of salary for the said period was filed either in the interlocutory application or in W.P.No. 8042 of 2002.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants as the same baseless, and we have no hesitation to hold that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-employee that the respondent is entitled to payment of salary for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 is justifiable. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal with the following direction:
“The appellants – A.P.S.R.T.C. are hereby directed to pay salary to the respondent-employee as may be applicable to the post of Sramik for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 as per his entitlement in accordance with the A.P. State Road Transport Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 22.04.2014
bcj
RAM, J CHALLA KODANDA