R JOHNWESLY Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been instituted by a former conductor employed with the state-owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'the Corporation'), seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him additional monetary benefits, in lieu of alternative employment, as per Circular No. PD-40/2005, dated 26.08.2005. The facts, which are relevant for our enquiry, are:

(2.) THE writ petitioner, while serving the Corporation as a conductor, had retired from service on the basis of a medical certificate issued by the medical officer on 05.07.2005, declaring him unfit for being continued in service as a conductor. Hence, the writ petitioner had to be retired from service on 16.07.2005, much before he attained the age of superannuation prescribed by the Corporation. THE writ petitioner, therefore, claimed certain additional monetary benefits in lieu of alternative employment. He draws inspiration for staking a claim for this additional monetary benefits on Circular No. PD- 40/2005, dated 26.08.2005, issued by the Corporation.

(3.) IT is not very difficult to visualize a situation where a good number of drivers would be put to duties on such of the buses plied at night times. While driving the buses during night time, the drivers are required to focus greater attention on the road conditions as well as the vehicular traffic moving in the opposite direction. In the process, they get exposed to a constant and varying degrees of light intensity. Sometimes, from out of the pitch darkness, they get exposed to focused lighting of the vehicular traffic coming in the opposite direction. The intensity of the light therefore, keeps fluctuating and this factor can have an impact upon the standards of vision of drivers and hence, the management has recognized that drivers as a class are more prone for losing the standards of fitness required to be maintained by them much faster than the rest of the employees. Therefore, to my mind, classification of the employees of the Corporation into two different segments, one of drivers and the rest comprising the other employees, cannot be considered to be either discriminatory or arbitrary. There is a rational relationship attempted by the Corporation in devising this classification. The need to compensate additionally the drivers is obviously more acute than the necessity to compensate the rest of the employees, who all due to other factors than their very nature of calling may be prone for losing the standards of fitness. Therefore, the classification attempted by Resolution No. 128 of 2003 and granting additional monetary benefits in the form of ex gratia to the drivers cannot be treated as wholly unjust or impermissible.