Md. Saleem Pasha v. 1. Telanoana state Road Transport corporation

Counsel for the Resuondents: SRI R. ANUAG(SC FOR TSRTC, The Court made the rollowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KI\RTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.43542 of 2022 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents ln retiring the petitioner from service with retrospective effect from 19.01.20i9 vide Proc.No.E2/786(0l)12019.MP., dated 21-01.2O19, without providing alternative suitable employment and not considering petitioner's representation dated 23. I 1 .2O2O , the present Writ Petition is hled. 2l Heard Sri Mr.Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the pelitioner, Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counscl for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as driver in the month of April, 2010, after undergoing due process of selection in Hyderabad Region. Subsequenlly, his services were regularized w.e.f.O1.09.20 13 and accordingly he has been working continuously till he was made to retire from service prematurely w.e.f. 19.01.2019 vide impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019 wherein the-petitioner was declared as unfit for any post in the Corporation due to disability sustained after entering into the Corporation, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is lurther submitted that while [he petitior-rer was working in third respondent Depot, he -2 PK,.I vP 13642 2022 sustainrld e r .rcture injury while travelling on a r,ot )r bikc on \

30.03.20 [(> a about 2230 hours after completiorr c f l-ri ; duties on that da1-. tni i,Llly, the petitioner was treated at NllvlS h,rspital and the sairl lrr : pital has estimated the cost of re lt men t as Rs.6O,000 / vhich was also informed to third r, rs 1)c ndent vide lctter date,l 1 ! 04.2016. Accordingly, he has taker-r tr::arment at R- 2 hospita l. : rce he was not completely recovered ztt R 2 Hospital, the said hc:; r l-al has referred him to NIMS Hosprr a [, l{yclerabad, where th,: lre t.ioner has incurred Rs.60,000/- [or.t'rtrds treatment. After tht: tr:z I :nent, NIMS Hospital, has issued Merlt:a Certificate dated 11.()z 1018 advising the Manageme:r: o rcspondent Corporzrrrc r rat he may be allotted desk duties or other than driver ,lrrti':s Accordingly, for some period, ris se vices were extractt:d c n other duties i.e. other than driver (LLlties, out of designal ion , rsis, through letter dated 04.i1.201/ as issued by the Ch ief F'r r:;onnel Manager to Regional Mrtnaller, Fiyderabad Region. ',r/ r le so, the RTC Dispensary, Mush,:erabad, also examinerl 1[r , petitioner on 08.O6.2018 wherein he rt'rs declared unfit for llrrr r ;st of driver i.e. A. 1 category due to riglrt Jeg fracture. Hence, lJrr: p ' 'tioner made a representation to re'spo 1dllnL No.3 on

13.06.2() 18 r rth a request to send him to N{eili':al Board for examinal-i r : ;n medical appeal wherein he rvas e: amined on

21.71,2tr)18 t l l declared unfit for the post of driver itgz'inst which, , , L I t l- PK, J wP 43642 2022 he was examined by the Medical Board on 08.01.2018 on the representation of third respondent letter dated 27.11.2018 and the said Board has declared him medically unfit for the post of driver and other alternative posts without any valid reason. Therefore, the action of the Board in declaring the petitioner as unfit for all other alternative posts is without any basis and valid reasons and in violation of Articles 14 and 2 I of the Constitution of India, resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood and bread to his family members apart from violation of Section 20 (4) of the Right of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short 'Act of 2016). Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 23.11.202O requesting for re-medical examination for job as he has no source of income for his family and he is hardly having age of 4l years and still having 19 years of service for his actual retirement. Hence, retiring the petitioner from service at younger age prematurely amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has studied upto loh Class and is suitable to the post of Shramik and Record Keeper and any other suitable job. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1789/200O and Nq.rend.ra Rumar Chandla a. State of Haryanal. AIR 1995 SC 519 -4- PK. J N? )i642 2022 4\ Pcr r;or l-a, Lhe learned Standing Counsel u,hile ac mitling thc fact thai -llc .;ervices of the petitioner was engagerl iIS contract driver c.n .\ 02.2OlO and his services were requle rizcd from O1.O9.20Lr z r Mehadipatnam Depot. Furiher. the J>etitroner was sent lcrt pcr i,-,clical medical examination to R.1 t.)rganrzatron, Mehadipat r rr rL Dispensary, wherein the petitioncr t,zrs iound unfit for A.1 Cate r ory driver due to "Pedaloedeue R1' Legr" vide MC No.0/ 1,18.-il! . dated 02.ll.2Ol8. It is further sutrnritLed that on considering t r,:) representation of the petitioner, hrc '!'rls Cirected lor re-medr<;:r c:. rLmination for appeal to R.2 Hospital 'r'h:re. he was found unlil l A. 1 Category (Driver) due to "Painlttl t.:T Leg ILN- INSITU'' CT 'I 3.01.2019 and was declared unfit br he post of Driver (A. | : r egory) and also unfit for all othe r czLl,:gr,ries as per the Mcrlic,r I rirndards of hrst respondent Organizal ion. Therefore, the imcr:11rre proceedings were issued by resp,orcien No.3 vidc Procee clr n13lr '.t.82/786(0l)/2019.MP,. dated 21.O 20 t9, retiring the petit,icr r: :rn medical grounds. It is further sut;ntitred that the petitiorrr:r 1rz . been declared unfit for the post of rtri,'er by duly constit: tcC ,ledical Board of the Corporation anr ts per the medical sr e n J,rrds of the Corporation. Further. tht \{e Cical Board of the Oo -1>c -;.tion is appropriate authority to cer:ilr. l.he medical litncss of an , ,mployee and the opinion of the szLid lloi.rd shall be final. It i:; lr- r ther submitted that the provisions of tlrr: \ct of 2016 , / 5- PK, J wP'43642-2022 do not apply to the re spondent Corporalion as the Corporation was exempted from the provisions of the said Act by the Government of Telangana vide G'O'Ms No 42' Transport' Roads & Buildings (Tr'lI)' dated,24.02.2018' Hence' the provision of Section 20 of the Act of 2016 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner' Therefore' he Cannotbeprovidedanyalternateemploymentasclaimedbyhim. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'krie Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No '3529 l2Ol7 & batch' dated 23'O2'2O17' the beneht of Section 47 of theAct of 2016 is available to only those who are governed by the disabilities specihed in Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2016. Since the petitioner has been declared medically unlit for the post of driver and retired from service' he can opt either for additional monetary fund in terms of Reguration 6A(5) of rGRTC Employees (Service) Regulations or employment to any of his dependants as per eligibility' Hence ' it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reiiance has also been placed on Writ Appeal No 380 of 2Ol7 & batch dated 05'06'2017 and Writ Appeal No i96 of 2Ol7 & batch dated' 25 'o3 '2022 In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended 5) that the co-employee of the petitioner by name M'srinivas Rao who is similarlY situated to that of the petitioner, was also declared unht due to Axonal Neupathy based rt given by the Medical Committee and he was on the medical rePo (trmP.No.82587 1), i i l I I I I -6 PK, J \Nt' t3642 202.) glven alr,r Bhadra,:hale Manag,:r. Ij Mr.K.Ramclr (Emp.Nc,.22 t V. Venk,rt,)rif (Emp.N,r.iI8 medical grou their respt c ti thc said bcn e: to discrt nllrriit counssl p-',1216; case of tlrc ;,r: r.l,ith simt lar lr r ; tive employment as Shramik ancl posted to 'r Depot as Shramik vide Ofhce Orci::r ot thr: Depot 'irdrachalam, dated 17.12.2O1g. Lik:rvise, onc rdc5. driver (Emp.No.2Og l 73) lt; sk a r, driver , i8), A.L. Khan, driver (Ern Lt,to.2 i9548), , rn, driver (Emp.No.2201g3), and X,[d lsnrail, driver, , )9), who were also declared as medi< al y unfit on t.ls, were given the alternative posts ol Sthramik in I Depots whereas the petitioner \r,as -to r. exl,ended Therefore, the action of the responr.l€ ntrl amounts r r, which is illegal and arbitrary. I{r:nce, t tc learned r lris Court to direct the respondents to r:o nsider the ' ioner for providing alternative emplcy ne nt on par ,,rrated persons. 6) This -lr, .t has taken note of the submrssior s made by respectivr: pilr-. :; and perused the materihl on record. 7) As r;een I , ,m lhe record, admittedly, while ti,re pc .itirner u.as working as; c1r ir i' he was sent for periodical medical exa rin.tion to respon <le ,r Dispensary rvher.e in he was 1 category clriver due to IMPLANTS SI.]'U, vide Further, on consicle -ing the l()ner, he was directed for re=:l=a;^.11 (.xanrination i,lo. i Musheerabad the post of A RIGHT LEG clated 02.1I.2018. found unfit f PEDALOEDITL t1 M.C.No.O/ t 4ri.+! appeal of thc f, r:1 t -7 PK, J wP 43642 2022 to R.2 hospital wherein also he was found declared unf,rt for the post of A. I category driver due to "Painful Right Leg ILN INSITU" on

08.01.2019 and also declared unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards o[ the respondent Corporation' Consequently, vide proceedings Rc.No.Ez1786 (Olll 2019, dated 2l .Ol.2O7g, respondent No.3 retired the petitioner on medical grounds w.e.f. 19.01.2019 in terms of Regulation 6 (A) (5) (b) of TSRTC trmployees Service Regulations, 1964. 8) Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Act of 2016 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the said reliance is misconceived as [he case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(i) which stipulates disability covered under the Act of 2016. 9) Here, it is pertinent to state that while dealing with the provisions of Act of 2O 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2Ol7 batch, dated 23.02.2017, has held that the benefit of Section 47 ol the Act of 2016 is available to the persons, who suffered disability in terms of Section 2 (i) of the Act of 201.6. 10) Following the above referred judgment dated 23'O2 2Ol7, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appcal Nos.380 of 2Ol7 & balch, has helcl as under: -8 PK, J YP 13642 2022 "Follo,,,,ir No3529 ol- are also c ir Act sha I I disabilirie; appellin:.(- of tlLr: r:: prefer:LbJ1. v of the or c r-. therezrlic - tr Suprcme ( )1 the order of the Supreme Court, in C r,il r\ppeal )17 and barch dated 23.02.2017, these lV.it Appeals oscd of holding that the benefit of Secti,)l 4 / of the r available only to those who ale cora:r:d by the r'.,ccihed in Section 2(i) of the Act; it is ol)er to the t-poration to take a decision, on indiviclual qrir:r..ar-rces :ondent writ petitioners, with utmost exPedition r,hin three months from the date of receinr o1 a copy rmd the respondenl-writ petitioners are at liberly ,r\.arl their remedies in terms of the -judgmen: of the 11 " 1 1) From :lre rbove, it is clear that the benefit of thc Ac t of 2016 rs availaltle rr 1,. to those who are covered b1. the d sabilities specified in fir:c . orr 2(i) of the Act 12) Even ()r lr : -r.r,ise, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 1t,4.))..2079, the Governm(rllt r I Telangana had exempted the re.;ponclent corporatir>n f'. r thc provisions of section 2o of tr-rc Ar:t of 2016. Relevant por i;r .rf the said G.O. reads as under: "8. ( io; matter har': Departntetr lr State Fk)a{l 'f 2O of the }ri of Drivcrs . invoking t-r : the pro,"rsc ,r rment after careful examination of tl- e entire l,:rcided to accept the recommendation ol tht inter .lommittec ald hereby order to exernpt T.:lar_rgar-ta . nsport Corporation from the provisions o. S,lction I I of Persons with Disabilities Act 20 16,, ir L rr:spect ,nductors ald Mechanics (rnctuding lrtir;ansl, : rrvers conferred on the State Governme nt, rnder i.,:ction 20 (1), subject to the following cor:.diticns: It 9- PK, J wP 43642 2022

1. TSRTC should continue to extend all the benelits i.e. Additiona.l Monetary Beneht or compassionate appointment in case of retirements on medical invalidation,

2. TSRTC should Ievels of medical scrutiny invalidation." subject its employees before retiring them on to three medical 13) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent-Corporation is cxempted from the provisions of Act of 2016. Hence, the petitioner is restrained from seeking any relief from the respondent-Corporation under the provisions of Act of 20 16. 14) As regards discrimination urged by the petitioner is concerned, the record discloses that as Mr. M.Srinivas Rao, driver (Emp.No.) was declared unlrt only for the post of A. 1 category driver, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared or equated v,'ith that of said M.Srinivas Rao, as the the petitioner was declared unl1t for the post of A. 1 category driver as well as all other posts. Therefore, the said ground is unavailable to the petitioner. 15) Howcver, as congregated from the record, vide proceedings Rc.E2l 8 13( 1 ) / 20 17 -MP, dated 27 .O7.2O 17, the Depot Manager, Mehadipatnam Depot, has advised the Assistant Manager (T), Mehadipatnam Depot, to utilize the services of the petitioner on out of designation duties like controller duty at Mehdipatnam Rythu Bazar point fcrr a period of three months. Thereafter, the Chief Personnel Manager vide proceedings No.GC3/255(21) l2017 - - 10 - PK, J \ P 43642 2022 PO(T&W), .ti rr:6.1 94.11.2Ot2. had accorded perrn ssion to the Regional l{ ar , Lgs1, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, to lrrcvide out of desrgnalio.t ( llies for a lurther period of threc rnrtr tl_rs lo the petitionir. 16) Fr.nL rl .rbove tu,o procecdings, it is thus < r.ar that after the petirrorrcr net with accident on 30.03.2016. his ;etvices were utilized ltv rl I Corporation by allotting him orLt e1 c esignation duties ltrr l :onsiderable periocl and having cltrLe so, whaL prevented the, r ,.spondent authorities in further r;ontir ui_rg to allot the petitron: - , , r of clesignation duties is not forlhcomir_r,,1 from the record. 171 Thitt irltz r t, in the initial mcdical examination conrlucted bv Musheerzrbac )ispensary, the petitioner was folu.rd and declared unht onlv b olA No.0/ 148a 3,) r ated O2. 1 1.2O 18. medical e xirtrr ittion conducted by the Medrcal petitioner u': s r ridc MC whereas in the su bsequent I category rhe post (driv< r 3orlrd, the , clared unfit for the post of Driver A. i c:ar_egory as :r11 other alternate categories, though i t i .; evident ,l that after the accident thc peri ,ioner had han designatecl dutics lor a periorl ol .ix months 'or declaring the petitioner as unlit fr:r ,rl1 other i-rcoming, morc particularly, when lhe dr ctors of weli as urriit 1cr from the rt,< r> dischargecl or lLe but the reas()ns posts are no t () \ - 1l - PK, J wP 43642 2022 Musheerabad Dispensary have declared the petitioner unlit only for the posl of driver (A. I category). 18) That apart, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.O2.2018, the Government while granting exemption to the respondent Corporation from the provision of Section 20 of the Act of 2016, has imposed condition at clause 8(2) thereof stating that employee shalt be subjected to three levels of medical scrutiny before retiring them on medical invalidation. In the case on hand, the material on record reveals only two levels of medical scrutiny of the petitioner i.e. onc at Mehedipatnam Dispensary and another by the Medical board. 19) [n view of the above discrepancies and considering the fact that the petitioner is only 43 years old, this Court deems il appropriate to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for a detailed medical examination once again. 2Ol Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondcnts to scnd the pctitioner for detailed medical examination for ascertaining his litness and suitability for any other alternate post and take appropriate decision in the matter, without reference to thc impugned proceedings dated 2l .O1.2079. As the petitioner is out of scrvice since 2O19, the respondents are directed to l) PK, J wP 1:1642-2022 t complete, t -r: date of rccrlp -1tire exe rcise within a pcriod of frltr ,,r.:el:s from the r1- a copy of this order Misc:. iz r eous petitions pcnding, if any_, slLerl ;tz.nd closed No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR AqsrFrANT REGTS_TR4R tr t'-- \ .i \SECTION OFFICER Il," Managirp t)irector, .Telangana State Road fr"n$ort Oorporation, Bus '1. . Bhavan, Rl'O lRoad, Hyderadad. 2. The Medicel B rrrd, TSR1C Hospital, Tarnaka, Hvderabact. 3. The Depot lvla iger. TSRTC, Btis Depot, Meh'dip'atnam, Hyde"abad. 4. One CC to S;ri tiizir Ahmed Khan, Abvocat" fdpUCl 5. One CC to r;- ;'. Anurag(SC for TSRTC) tOpUCl 6. Two CD Cooie i I CH& To TJ LS HIGH COURI DATED:11104t2025 ORDER WP.No.43642 ot 2022 q .) o STAj{ <.A o'' 2i1 l,liY 2[25 \=:-l Tcts * <o 6) T DISPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CIC STS t$-k