ESHWARA REDDY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSTRC CENTRAL OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the parties are heard, and the impugned Endorsement dated 21.10.2020 is perused. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Endorsement because the respondent has called upon the petitioner to report to duty after availing for himself a hearing aid.

(2.) The petitioner, a driver with the respondent, is assigned alternative light work because he complained of hearing difficulties. However, the petitioner with lapse of time is asked to undergo examination by a Board of Doctors from All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru. This Medical Board has issued the Certificate as per Annexure - K opining that the petitioner has severe hearing loss in the right ear and mild hearing loss in the left ear with the recommendation that the petitioner must undergo hearing aid trial and follow up. In consideration of this medical Certificate the impugned endorsement is issued.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the issuance of impugned endorsement, the petitioner has not reported to duty because of the pendency of this petition. However, it would be imperative for the petitioner to report to duty first and explain the measures taken by him to avail a hearing aid trial and later follow-up and request for continuation of alternative light work. The petitioner, without even such representation in the light of the medical certification, would not be entitled for any directions by this Court. At the same time, it must be observed that any insistence on the petitioner to work as a driver without the Doctors affirming that the petitioner could drive with the hearing aid, would be wrought with severe risk.