IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 22069 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M.A.JOY. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, MANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O.,NORTH PARAVOOR, (ASSISTANT STORE KEEPER GR.II, KSRTC., CHENGANASSERY DEPOT). 2. A.ASOK KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.K.ANANTHA PAI, KALATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, THIRUMALA BHAGOM P.O., THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA-688 540. (ASSISTANT STORE KEEPER GR.II, KSRTC CHERTHALA DEPOT). BY ADV. SRI.JUSTINE.K.P.(KARIPAT). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. R1 & R2 BY SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,S.C, K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22069/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT 2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PAGE NO. 10 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT OF 1990 DTD. 11/05/1990. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN KESAVAN VS. KSRTC (2006 (1) KLT 159). EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 26/11/2007. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 10/12/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE OF P.1. DTD. 06/09/2008 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT SURGEON, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KODUNGALLUR. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/02/2008 IN W.P.(C). NO.5377/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. PL2-001528/08 DTD. 09/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL2/000678/07 DTD. 10/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/10/2002 IN W.A. NO. 969/2000 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. P.L. 10/6088/06 DTD. 15/12/2006 PASSED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).31312/2006 DTD. 27/11/2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).8546/2007 DTD. 14/03/2007 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. PL2/022339/06 DTD. 31/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1/1990 IN W.P. NO. 308/1988 DTD. 24/10/1990 OM PRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST OF STORE ISSUERS AS ON 01/03/2005 PUBLISHED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.22069 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010. Judgment 1.The complaint of the petitioners is that they are deprived of their entitlements under Section 4 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protections of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The said provision prescribes non-discrimination in Government employment. That is essentially a right conferred on persons with disabilities. Therefore, in terms of Sections 61 and 62, the Commissioner appointed by the State Government is empowered to look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities; non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of WPC22069/09 -: 2 :- persons with disabilities and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the KSRTC, the employer of the petitioners is a statutory body, the Commissioner under the Act in hand will have jurisdiction to decide on such complaints. Therefore, I am clear in my mind that the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy against the grievances advanced. 2.Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in certain other litigations, the KSRTC had conceded to certain directions issued by this Court and had reconsidered their stand and the PSC's concurrence may also be an issue. In this context, the learned counsel for the KSRTC states that if the petitioners make appropriate application seeking the benefit of the Act, that would be considered in accordance with law. Taking the aforesaid submissions into WPC22069/09 -: 3 :- consideration and without going into merits, the impugned order is quashed to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs from the establishment in terms of what is recorded above. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0106 The word & figure “Section 4” occurring in the 2nd line of the judgment dated 24/05/2010 in WP(C) 22069/2009 are corrected as “Section 4” vide order dated 15/06/2010 in I.A.7681/2010. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial)