ANIL KUMAR S. Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as an Upper Division Clerk [UDC] in the 4th respondent's College is a disabled person suffering from a condition called 'Myasthenia Gravis'. His disability is stated to be 60%. The condition is also said to be progressive in nature and affecting his nervous system as well. Finding difficulty in carrying out the work allotted to him by the respondents, he had preferred Ext. P4 representation before the 2nd respondent for the latter's intervention in the matter. As no action was forthcoming from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C). No. 22834/2012 which was disposed by Ext. P5 judgment dated 3.10.2012 that directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the representation preferred by the petitioner. In Ext. P9 order dated 27.12.2012, the 2nd respondent issued directions to the 5th respondent regarding the nature of work to be allocated to the petitioner. It would appear that aggrieved by the directions issued by the 2nd respondent, the 5th respondent preferred a representation before the 2nd respondent seeking a review of Ext. P9 order. The 2nd respondent, thereafter, by Ext. P11 order dated 25.1.2013 reviewed his earlier order and issued fresh directions with regard to the nature of the work to be allocated to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that this order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without hearing him. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a leave to get treatment in a hospital, when his medical condition aggravated. The said leave was apparently not sanctioned, as is borne out by Ext. P17. For the unauthorised absence, therefore, Ext. P18 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply filed by him, Ext. P21 order dated 30.12.2013 was passed directing a domestic enquiry to be held to look into the allegations against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, on the representation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner vide Ext. P14 communication dated 11.7.2013 that consequent to Ext. P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the 5th respondent was contacted and it was reported that the petitioner had been given lighter work and that his work place was also shifted taking into consideration his medical condition. It was also stated in Ext. P14 that any further grievance of the petitioner had to be taken with the management and not through the authorities in the Education Department of the State. It is challenging Ext. P14 communication, as also the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext. P18 show cause notice, that the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

(2.) AFTER admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on 3.7.2014, directing the 4th and 5th respondents to allot lighter work to the petitioner having regard to his medical condition and to accommodate him in the ground floor of the Library for the purposes of work. Against the said interim order dated 3.7.2014, the 4th and 5th respondents preferred W.A. No. 994/2014. By a judgment dated 18.7.2014 in the said writ appeal, a Division Bench of this Court took note of the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th and 5th respondents that, as per the revised work allotment given to the petitioner, he needed to work only for 44 days in a year. A statement showing the allotment of work was also produced before the Division Bench. The Division Bench then considered the statement showing the allotment of work and, after considering the contentions on behalf of the petitioner, modified the work allotment by deleting one of the items of work. Thus, the work allotment to the petitioner, as affirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment, now reads as follows:

(3.) ON a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that the main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition, that the nature of work that is allotted to him does not take into account his medical condition, has been more or less redressed by the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 18.7.2014 in W.A. No. 994/2014. As per the directions in the said judgment, the petitioner is now required to discharge only 32 days of work in a year, comprising of 25 days in the work of fee concession of SC/ST/OEC/OBC students, 5 days of work in connection with fee concession of fisheries students and 2 days of work in connection with caution deposit/refund examination fee. This is as against the regular work load of approximately 250 days in a year applicable to regular employees under the 4th and 5th respondents, and as against the 44 days of work that was allocated to the petitioner prior to the intervention of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal referred to above. Considering the medical condition of the petitioner, I am of the view that the present arrangement adequately redresses the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the volume of work that he can undertake under the 4th and 5th respondents. I would, therefore, dispose this writ petition by declaring that the petitioner would be required to do work under the 4th and 5th respondents only in accordance with the work allotment mentioned above till such time as his medical condition warrants any change in the said arrangement. In that event, he will necessarily have to approach the 4th and 5th respondents for a further relaxation in the work arrangement, which, I am sure, the 4th and 5th respondents will consider, taking into account the medical condition of the petitioner.