1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 1/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.3498 of 2011 Thangaraju ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam. 2. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Thirumayam Road Pudukottai. 3. The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Cantonment Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide alternate employment to the petitioner as per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) and grant such relief. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Baskaran O R D E R The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition directing the respondents to provide him alternative employment as per the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been inducted as a Driver in the State Transport Corporation and his services were regularised from 15/5/1995 onwards. On 7/8/2010, the second respondent directed him to appear before the Director of Regional, Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai and he had appeared before the Medical Board of Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Government Ophthalmic Hospital on 7/9/2010. A report has been sent to the second respondent that there is a defect in his vision and hence, it may not be safe to permit him to drive the heavy vehicle. On receipt of the same, the second respondent has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 directed the third respondent to allot him some alternative employment. The petitioner was posted as Attender at a petrol bunk situated within the premises of the third respondent and was drawing salary till the month of February 2011. From 24/2/2011 onwards, the third respondent failed to provide him employment stating that the second respondent has orally informed not to provide him any employment. Therefore, the petitioner met the first respondent. The first respondent informed him that he will consider his case sympathetically. However, the third respondent informed him on 15/3/2011 that his case will be considered in the Board Meeting and a decision will be taken thereon. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been inducted as Driver in the State Transport Corporation in the year 1995 and that the second respondent directed him to appear before the Medical Board by his proceeding dated 7/8/2010. The petitioner has appeared before the Medical Board and they had found that in view of defect in his vision, he may not be fit to act as Driver. In view of the same, the petitioner has been provided with an alternative employment with the same pay protection. However, it is stated that the third respondent has not permitted him to do the work on and from 24/2/2011. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 5. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 contemplates that an employee who suffers infirmity and may not be in a position to work in the same capacity has to be given alternative employment. While so, the respondents cannot refuse an alternative employment to the petitioner. A decision in this regard has been rendered in 2006 (1) CTC – 124 {P.THANGAMARIMUTHU Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI (DIVISION – I) LTD., MADURAI 625 010}. In the said decision, it has been categorically held that, the employee, who suffers ailment while in service, has to be given an alternative employment with same pay protection as per the said Act. 6. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the respondents have to provide alternative employment to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner will be provided with an alternative employment and the decision in this regard will be passed by the Board within one month from this date. 8. Taking note of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, I direct the respondents to provide alternative employment to the petitioner considering the infirmities he has suffered during the course of employment. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner was prevented from joining duty for no fault of him, the respondents cannot deny salary to the petitioner from the date when the petitioner was not given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 employment till the date when the petitioner is provided with an alternative employment. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation, Kumbakonam. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai. 3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Contonment, Trichy. +1 CC to Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate, SR.No.12265 +1 CC to Mr.S.Baskaran, Advocate, SR.No.12397 mvs W.P.(MD) No.3498 of 2011 1/4/2011 TR : 09.06.2011 : 3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/