Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

S Kusuma W/O B K Kiran Kumar vs The Managing Director Ksrtc Central Offices And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|25 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.15821/2019 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN S KUSUMA W/O B.K.KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT OPPOSITE TO NEW COURT COMPLEX, KORATAGERE TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129 (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT AND ENVIRONMENT) THE CHAIRMAN THE COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE POST KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER ... PETITIONER KSRTC TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR -572 101 (BY SMT RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 ) ... RESPONDENTS 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 ANNEXURE-N TO THE W.P. AND THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DATED 30.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner contends that she is unable to discharge her duties as Conductor, since she is suffering from left clavical bone fracture with shoulder joint arthritis.
2. The petitioner therefore made a representation to the respondent-Corporation stating that the Medical Board was of the opinion that the petitioner is suffering from 45% permanent disability and therefore, she requested for light work. Since the request of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.39200/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on 07.01.2011 directing the respondents to refer the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2009 to the competent authority for appropriate decision. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the competent authority. On receipt of the representation, the competent authority was directed to consider the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to both the parties.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the disability of the petitioner at 45%. The petitioner was once again referred for medical examination and the Medical Board opined that the petitioner is suffering from 15% disability and with this disability, it was opined that she can continue her duties.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 at Annexure ‘Q’ was issued whereby the petitioner was directed to resume to the original post for which the petitioner was appointed. It is noticed that in the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 it is mentioned that the petitioner is suffering from 15% disability.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. 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 Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, but the petitioner may make a representation in terms of the Circular No.681 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, the respondents are also directed to consider such representation and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S Kusuma W/O B K Kiran Kumar vs The Managing Director Ksrtc Central Offices And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
25 April, 2019
Judges
  • R Devdas