1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1173 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam Region, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukkottai Branch, Pudukkottai District. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. R.Santhanam ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 02.08.2010, made in W.P.(MD) No.9586/2010 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to place the petitioner on alternate employment in the light work on the basis of medical records and regularize the period of leave. For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is preferred by the appellants, namely Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., challenging the order of the writ court, dated 02.08.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.9586 of 2010 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directing the appellants to intimate the date of appearance of the respondent before the medical board within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directing that on receipt of the opinion of the doctors, the appellants shall consider the request of the respondent for alternative employment. 2.Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the order passed by the writ court is liable to be set aside as the respondent has not produced any document in support of his version. It is further contended that the appellants were not given any opportunity for filing counter before the writ court. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the respondent is not entitled to seek direction for considering the representation preferred by him seeking alternative employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the writ court. 4.At the outset, it is to be stated that the respondent has filed the writ petition with a limited prayer seeking for a direction to the appellants herein to place him on an alternative employment, in any light work, on the basis of medical records and to regularise the period on leave. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel appeared for the appellants before the writ court represented that the respondents therein, namely the appellants herein, were prepared to take action, provided the respondent appears before the Medical Board and on the basis of the report of the Medical Board the appellants would consider the representation of the respondent and pass suitable orders regarding alternative employment. Only on the basis of such a representation made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the writ court has passed the order directing the appellants to intimate the date of appearance of the respondent before the Medical Board, within a stipulated time limit of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directing the appellants that after the receipt of opinion of the doctors to consider the relief sought for by the respondent for alternative employment. We are unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the order of the writ court. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants in intimating the respondent to appear before the Medical Board within a stipulated time and thereafter, on receipt of medical opinion, to consider the representation of the respondent for the relief of giving him alternative employment in the light of the medical report and regularise the period of leave. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no ground made out warranting interference in the order of the writ court. 5.Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is also dismissed. gb Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.THE GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LTD., KUMBAKONAM REGION, KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. 2.THE BRANCH MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LTD., PUDUKKOTTAI BRANCH, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. +1 CC TO M/S.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE SR.NO.37670. Judgment IN W.A.(MD)No.1173/2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 DATED:02.11.2011 2P/4C RPB : 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/