SHAIKH SALIM SHAIKH AMIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 05-06-2010 passed by respondent No. 3-Divisional Controller Osmanabad division terminating the services of the petitioner and removing his name from muster from 18-05-2010, to declare that said order is illegal, incorrect and in violation of section 47 of The Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'The Disabilities Act, 1995) and contrary to the notification dated 12-04-2006 issued by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Department and to issue appropriate writ or directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to give all consequential, financial, monetary, pensionary and other admissible benefits to the petitioner by considering continue service till date of his retirement on superannuation.

(3.) Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 09-04-1980 on the post of Driver in the department of respondent No. 3 and till the impugned order on 05-06-2010 he has performed his duty properly and was awarded with the service excellence. The petitioner has suffered serious Spondylosis problem due to driving of bus for continues 32 years on the bad road of rural area and therefore he was unable to drive the bus due to pain in the back. Therefore, he requested to give him alternate work such as peon, security guard or cleaner by application dated 08-03-2010. Thereafter, immediately respondent asked him to visit Dr. Shahapurkar who medically examined him on 19-03-2010 and submitted report that the petitioner is having gap in his spaniel cord due to which he should not be given the work of driving. Doctor also suggested that petitioner is physically unfit to perform the work as a driver and that he could be given alternate employment. However, respondent No. 3 on 01-04-2010 again asked the petitioner to appear before District Health Officer for medical examination. Accordingly he appeared before the District Health Officer. Said officer submitted report dated 13-04-2010 to respondent No. 3 stating that petitioner is unfit to perform as a driver and suggested that he could be given alternate work. However, surprisingly the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 05-06-2010 on the ground that, he is unfit to perform as a driver and he has not been given alternate employment. The impugned order is illegal. Immediately after the impugned order petitioner approached respondent No. 3 and requested to give him alternate employment. However, respondent No. 3 again asked petitioner to appear before Medical board, Solapur. He appeared before the said board and the board submitted report to respondent No. 3 stating that the petitioner can perform the light work. Inspite of all the medical reports suggesting that petitioner could be given light work respondent No. 3 did not give alternate employment to the petitioner. Therefore, he approached labour court by filing U.L.P. No. 41/2012 which was pending for about four years. Therefore, he withdrawn the said complaint with liberty to file writ petition and therefore the present writ petition.