The petitioner claims that, while in service of the 1st respondent Corporation as Conductor he developed loss of sight in his left eye permanently, to the extent of 30%, as estimated in Ext.P3 certificate issued by the District Medical Board. It is contended that the petitioner ought to have been treated as a person affected with permanent disability, and hence he applied for light duty on work arrangement in other posts. Ext.P4 request submitted in this regard before the 2nd respondent was rejected through Ext.P5 intimation issued by the 4th respondent. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request before the 2nd respondent to reconsider the decision. He claimed that his request for assignment of light duty/other duty/work arrangement need to be considered on the basis of seniority, even if he is not considered as permanently disabled person. Since Ext.P6 is not considered, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner will be entitled for consideration under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, only if it is proved that due to the disability he became unable to W.P.(C). No. 12693 of 2014 -2-
discharge duties attached to the post of Conductor. One of the contention raised is that due to the lose of sight in one of the eyes to the extent of 30%, the petitioner may not be in a position to get the Conductor licence renewed. It is for the appropriate authority in the 1st respondent Corporation to consider all these aspects and to take a decision as to whether the disability incurred by the petitioner will prohibit him from discharging duties attached to the post of Conductor. If the decision is on the positive, the respondents are bound to take necessary steps under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. If the petitioner is only seeking a category change or assignment of light duty/work arrangement/other duty, it is a matter which need to be decided depending on the policies and administrative exigencies of the respondent Corporation. It is for the competent authority to consider such request and to take an appropriate decision.
3. Considering the fact that Ext.P6 application is submitted before the 2nd respondent is pending, it is only just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the same and to take an appropriate decision.
4. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 and to take an W.P.(C). No. 12693 of 2014 -3-
appropriate decision on the request made therein, if necessary after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Learned standing counsel had informed that there is no hindrance in permitting the petitioner to join duty as Conductor in the meanwhile. The above submission is recorded. It will be left open to the petitioner to join duty as Conductor until a decision on Ext.P6 application is taken by the 2nd respondent.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn