MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LTD Vs. V SIVA KUMAR; ADMINISTRATOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND TRUST, THIRUVALLUVAR ILLAM, ANNA SALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul, represented by its General Manager, has preferred the instant appeal, challenging the order, made in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, by which, the Writ Court has held that the 1st respondent/V.Sivakumar, is entitled to pension from August 2003. The Writ Court has directed the appellant corporation to continue to pay pension, and further directed that arrears of pension from August 2003 be paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order made in the writ petition. Writ Court has further directed that pension be continuously paid to the 1st respondent from April 2011.

(2.) Short facts leading to the appeal, are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor in transport corporation on 06.08.1980. His services were regularised on 29.08.1983. He has completed 20 years of service. While so, in the year 2001, he suffered brain stroke and took treatment. His right hand and right leg were affected and hence, he was unable to move.

(3.) On receipt of information of the respondent's illness, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Ltd., Dindigul, has referred him to Medical Board, to find out his suitability, to the post of Conductor. The Medical Board, after examining him, by report dated 21.02.2001, found that he was unfit to work as Conductor. Thereafter, the corporation issued a show cause notice, dated 18.04.2001, asking the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The corporation has discharged the petitioner from service, by an order, dated 29.05.2001, without providing him, an alternative employment, as per Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner did not pursue his right for an alternate employment.