THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.628 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The Writ Petitioner was appointed as a conductor in APSRTC, henceforth referred to as ‘RTC’, somewhere in 1986 and his services as conductor were also regularized. While he was performing duty on 17.03.1998 a truck had collided with the bus conducted by him near Aramgarh Cross Road on National Highway No.7. The impact was so grave that the bus got tilted and hit the road. Two passengers succumbed to the injuries sustained by them immediately and several other passengers including the Writ Petitioner-Conductor received grievous injuries. The Writ Petitioner was initially admitted to the Osmania General Hospital and for better treatment he has been subsequently shifted to Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Panjagutta, Hyderabad where he underwent treatment for nearly six months period from 17.03.1998 up to 17.09.1998. Professor of Orthopedics, Osmania General Hospital who had examined the Petitioner on 27.11.1998 assessed the physical disability sustained by the Petitioner due to the accident at 30% and accordingly issued a certificate. In view of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the course of duty, which rendered him find difficulty to perform his normal duties, it would only be appropriate that lighter duties are to be assigned to him. In fact, the Medical Superintendent of NIMS declared the Writ Petitioner as fit for light desk work only by a certificate issued on 26.09.1998. In view of the strong medical evidence, rendering the Writ Petitioner fit only for a light desk work, it is only expected of the Respondents to assign him such light desk work duties. Instead, when the Writ Petitioner has been entrusted with almost on continuous basis duties of a conductor, which require him to be very active and mobile as part of performing such duties, as every conductor is required to collect bus fare from the passengers by moving about with the running bus from one end to the other, the Writ Petitioner experienced pain and suffering and hence sought for light desk duties. Since the Respondents have not heeded to his request, he instituted this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to assign him light desk work keeping in view his physical standards. 2 Heard Sri Mohd. Ghousuddin for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy learned standing counsel for the Respondent – Corporation. 3 In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the contents of the counter affidavit, I called for a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. The Law Officer of the Corporation has since filed an additional counter affidavit in the matter today. In paragraph No.5 thereof it is submitted that the first Respondent Depot Manager Hyderabad Central University Depot, upon being appraised of the physical disability condition of the Writ Petitioner, has been utilizing the services of the Petitioner in “Earning Section” on out of designation duty basis with effect from 07.04.2011. 4 Though it is certainly open to an employer to extract work from the employees by assigning them appropriate nature of duties, but at the same time, every model employer will realize that persons with disabilities, as high as 30%, as is available in the instant case, such employees deserve compassion and consideration. The nature of duties that are liable to be performed by a conductor undoubtedly require him greater degrees of physical fitness and ability. In an emergency situation, where adequate number of conductors are not available, to tide over such emergency situation, one can understand entrusting the duties of a conductor to the Petitioner. But it will be improper for the Respondents to assign the same nature of duties of a conductor to the Petitioner on a continuous basis, without any regard for the physical standards of the Petitioner and without any regard for the fact that he has sustained the disability of 30% due to the accident that had occasioned while he was on duty and he is not at all responsible or accountable for the said accident. If the Respondents prefer to have a fresh assessment of the disability of the Petitioner, it may be open to them to refer the Petitioner for a round of medical examination either at the NIMS where he has received treatment for a long period of nearly six months after the accident that had occasioned or to the Professor, Department of Orthopedics, Osmania General Hospital who has assessed and certified his disability earlier or even to a specialist-Orthopedic surgeon attached to the RTC hospital at Tarnaka. But it will be improper to seek to utilize the services of the Writ Petitioner only as a conductor on a regular and continuous basis. The Respondents are therefore required to utilize the services of the Writ Petitioner, for performing light desk work as recommended by the Medical Superintendent of the NIMS till such time the said medical superintendent of the NIMS tenders any contra opinion, upon examining the Petitioner. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise another grievance of the Petitioner that his case for further promotion has not been considered only because of the pendency of this Writ Petition. That being a separate issue, I refrain to pronounce any opinion thereon except observing that it is open to the Writ Petitioner to ventilate his grievances and seek the appropriate redressal. 6 The Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order. No order as to costs. ------------- 22.06.2011 Kvsn