Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2026 and…
Judgment
WP No. 18400 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAWP No. 18400 of 2026K.RaviS/o.P.KannaiahNo.2/315 Palavedu Pettai Main RoadIAF, Avadi, Chennai 600055...Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Managing DirectorMetropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai ) LimitedPallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.
The Branch Manager, Avadi Bus DepotMetropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai ) LimitedChennai 600054...Respondent(s)PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide the Petitioner back wages, continuity of service, all other attendant benefits from 05.12.2024 to 08.04.2025, 08.07.2025 to 04.09.2025, 27.11.2025 to 12.03.2026 along with the continuous alternative duty based on his representation dated 17.03.2026.__________Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18400 of 2026 For Petitioner(s):Mr. S.R.KarthikeyanFor Respondent(s):Mr. R. Balaji, Standing CounselORDERThe present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide the Petitioner back wages, continuity of service, all other attendant benefits from 05.12.2024 to 08.04.2025, 08.07.2025 to 04.09.2025, 27.11.2025 to 12.03.2026 along with the continuous alternative duty based on his representation dated 17.03.2026.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was employed as a driver in the Respondent Transport Corporation, rendered medically unfit for active driver duty due to spinal problems, contends that the temporary alternative duty provided to him on a piecemeal basis (for merely 2 or 3 months a year, leaving him without employment for the remaining months) is illegal and directly violates the objective, scheme, and scope of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner contended that despite his disability being temporary, alternative duty must be provided continuously until the Medical Board officially confirms his fitness to resume his duties as a driver, as the current irregular arrangement severely affects his and his family's livelihood. Aggrieved by the absolute lack of response to his representation dated 17.03.2026, wherein he prayed for continuous alternative __________Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18400 of 2026employment along with back wages, continuity of service, and attendant benefits for the periods he was unlawfully denied duty, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2026 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.03-06-2026Asi__________Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18400 of 2026To1.The Managing DirectorMetropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai ) Limited, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.2.The Branch Manager, Avadi Bus DepotMetropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai ) LimitedChennai 600054.__________Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18400 of 2026P.T.ASHA, J.AsiWP No. 18400 of 202603-06-2026__________Page5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Disabilities Act, 2016.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.