IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 369 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.K.JINACHANDRAN, PARAKKAT VEEDU, MARAVANTHURUTHU.P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686608.(DRIVER, KSRTC,VAIKOM DEPOT). BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 2. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VAIKOM DEPOT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686142. BY ADV. SR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NMBIAR, SC KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 369 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a driver under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is that he is having 22% permanent disability as per Ext.P6 and he is unable to discharge his function as driver. Earlier, he had approached the authorities producing necessary medical certificates and after consideration of such medical certificates, he was assigned light duty temporarily. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities for making the temporary order absolute and to assign him light duty. The said request of the petitioner was considered and Ext.P5 was passed. As per Ext.P5, the second respondent extended the light duty period of the petitioner for a further period of three months from 26.10.2010. It is specifically stated in Ext.P5 that on expiry of the extended period, the petitioner would be relieved from the light duty and in case of further disablement to perform his duties as driver, it would be open to him to apply for invalid pension. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that such a decision is W.P.(C) NO.369/2011 2 unsustainable in the light of Ext.P6 disability certificate dated 24.11.2010 and the provisions under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Obviously, Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent cannot be construed as an order passed after looking into the provisions under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act. In view of Ext.P6, the petitioner is justified in contending that Ext.P5 requires reconsideration with reference to the provisions under Section 47(1) mentioned above. In fact, Ext.P7 has been submitted in such circumstances. To enable the respondents to reconsider Ext.P5 and to consider the request of the petitioner made as per Ext.P7, Ext.P5 is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 taking into account Ext.P6 and also looking into the provisions under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act. Till such consideration, the petitioner shall be alloted to continue to perform light duty. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.369/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.369/2011 4