M V RAMANA RAO Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a driver of 'Al'-Category in the first respondent- Corporation, whose services are dispensed with on medical grounds, has filed this Writ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to give him any alternate suitable post, seeking assistance under the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

(2.) Necessary facts for disposal of the Writ Petition are as under: The writ petitioner was appointed as driver in A1-Category and posted to Podili Depot of Prakasam District. It is his case that during the tenure of his employment, he suffered disease called 'Tinnatus', which resulted in hearing impairment. As such, he is unfit to work as driver and the same is certified to that effect by the very authority of the State Road Transport Corporation. As such, he made a representation requesting for providing of any desk job, which is equivalent to Al-Category driver. When the petitioner was not provided with alternative and suitable job and when he was forced to go on leave, earlier he filed Writ Petition No. 18143 of 2002. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by judgment dated December 2, 2002 directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, in accordance with the directions issued in the said judgment by this Court, he made representation, on which, now, the second respondent-Regional Manager, Ongole has issued proceedings dated January 17, 2003 stating that the drivers who were found unfit for the post of Driver are to be considered to the post of 'Shramik' under 10% quota as per Circular No. 112/87, dated October 24, 1987. Further it is stated that in view of the financial restraints of the Corporation, even recruitment to the post of 'Shramik' have been deferred and referring to the same, the petitioner was informed that it is not possible to provide suitable alternative job to him.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Law Officer on behalf of the respondent- Corporation, it is clearly admitted that when the petitioner made representation for alternative employment, he was referred to their Hospital at Tarnaka and the senior Medical Officer, APSRTC has certified that the petitioner is unfit to discharge the duties of driver due to defective hearing and in view of the disease Tinnitus' developed in him. Further it is stated that in view of the certification of the Doctor, the petitioner was placed under forced leave with effect from January 30, 2002. With regard to the benefits claimed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the said Act is not applicable to the Corporation and the disease Tinnitus' is not a disability within the meaning of the said Act to extend the benefits under the said Act.