IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.3701 of 2011 R.Tamilvendan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishnan Road, Salem. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri District. ...Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide alternative sedentary job to the petitioner based on the proceedings No.R.2107/A3/09, dated 14.7.2009 of the medical Board of Government Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri as per Section 47(1) of the pension with Disabilities Act, 1995. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharmarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to provide him alternative job sedentary in nature based on the proceedings dated 14.07.2009 issued by the Medical Board attached to the Government Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri and in accordance with Section 47(1) of the pension with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 2. When the matter came up on 23.02.2011, Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation took notice. He has also filed a counter affidavit dated 23.03.2011. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 02.04.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The short facts leading to the present case were as follows:- The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation and has been working since 1987. On 02.03.2008, he suffered heart attack. Thereafter, he was admitted to the hospital and went through surgical procedure at Narayana Hirudayalaya Hospital at Bangalore. The Doctors who performed the surgery and attended on him on the post operative care recommended rest for four months. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Medical Board for a Fitness Certificate to join duty. The Medical Board attached to the Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, gave a Certificate of fitness dated 14.07.2009 and recommended his resumption of duty but only in sedentary nature of job. The petitioner pursuant to the Fitness Certificate granted by the Medical Board, applied to the second respondent to grant him light duty vide request letter dated 06.12.2010. Since the same was not forthcoming, he has filed the present writ petition with the claim as noted above. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, these facts were admitted. In paragraph 5 to 7 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:- "5. I submit that the Medical Board has not specifically certified that the petitioner is unfit for the post of conductor. It has recommended to provide with sedentary job only. As far as the respondent is concerned it has granted sufficient leave to the unwell employees and the Medical expenses incurred by the employees are also reimbursed to them as per rules. Employees with more disabilities are given light duty to certain period. As far as Dharmapuri Region of the respondent Corporation is concerned, about 16 Drivers/Conductors of their Corporation were underwent open heart surgery and all of them are performing duty after recovery. 6. I submit that the petitioner has referred two employees namely R.Mani and G.Rajendran who were provided with alternative employment as Helpers. In this regard, it is stated that R.Mani was sustained severe bone fractures and injuries on his left side hip and underwent major surgeries and G.Rajendran was affected by paralytic stroke. 7.I state that this respondent is operated bus service round the clock to give adequate Transport facility to the travelling public with determined norm of driver and conductors as prescribed by the Govt. In view of above, it is difficult to provide alternative employment to the employee like petitioner. However, this respondent is operating Deluxe/Ultra Deluxe buses with passengers to its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seating capacity only, and the Drivers and Conductors who were recommended for sedentary job could be posted in those buses." 5. The petitioner in his reply affidavit had stated that even working as a Conductor in Ultra Deluxe bus will be a difficult job. Infact, after his first operation in the year 2008, he was posted only in Ultra Deluxe bus. But thereafter, he had underwent another surgery on 16.02.2009 which has made him further non-suited to perform a job of Conductor and as recommended by the Medical Board, the respondent should be directed to give him post such as Time keeper or any other job in the bus stand. 6. In the light of the above, it has to be seen whether the stand of the respondents was legally justified. The mere contention that 16 Conductors and Drivers who underwent open heart surgery were performing regular duties after recovery is not a concession in case of the petitioner. The further stand of the respondents that it will be difficult to provide employment to employee like the petitioner also over looks the statutory mandate provided under the Persons with Disabilities Act. No doubt it is true that while granting Fitness Certificate, the Medical Board had recommended the grant of sedentary job. 7. The word 'Sedentary' had been defined in the Chambers 20th Dictionary New Edition 1983, which is as follows:- "Sedentary sitting much: requiring much sitting: inactive: stationary: not migratory: lying in wait, as a spider: attached to a sub stratum (2001)" 8. Therefore, if the recommendation of the Medical Board is that he should be given a sedentary job, the respondents cannot have their own understanding of the meaning of the word 'sedentary' and offer the petitioner once again the same job of Conductor which requires greater efforts to be put in and certainly, it cannot be held to be a sedentary job as recommended by the Medical Board. 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to provide an employment to the petitioner commensurate with the recommendations made by the Medical Board forthwith. If there is any further improvement on the health condition of the petitioner, it is always open to the Corporation to refer him for a further expert opinion from a competent Medical Board and proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ svki To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishnan Road, Salem. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri District. 1 cc to Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharmarajan, Advocate, Sr.No.29361 1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi, Advocate, Sr.No.29134 ORDER IN W.P.NO.3701 of 2011 PUR {CO} TP/5.5.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/