IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 11439 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.R.VANAJA, HEAD CLERK, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, MATTANCHERRY LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, P.B.NO.2017, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL.M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 11439/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.29.1.2003. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.11.6.80. P3. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.26.7.1980. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.7.2.84. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.6.2003 OF R3. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.7.5.04 BEFORE R3. P7. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.15.2.2007 TO R3. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.11439 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is having physical disability. In recognition of her disability, she was regularised in the service of the Headload Workers' Welfare Fund Board during the SAARK year of the Handicapped. The petitioner was being paid conveyance allowance allowable to physically handicapped employees upto December, 2002. Thereafter, the same was discontinued. According to the petitioner, the stoppage of the conveyance allowance is because of some ill will towards her of her superior officer. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to regular and continued payment of Conveyance Allowance without any break and that the purport and intent of Exts.P2 to P4 is to confer the benefit of conveyance allowance on persons like the petitioner. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to resume payment of conveyance allowance regularly to the petitioner with retrospective effect from December, 2002 onwards and sanction and pay to her the arrears thereof pending from December 2002.” 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that all physically handicapped persons are not automatically entitled to conveyance allowance and only those who come within the purview of Exts.P2 and P4 orders would be eligible for conveyance allowance. As far as orthopedic disability is concerned, for becoming eligible for conveyance allowance, the permanent partial w.p.c.11439/07 2 disability should be 40%. As far as persons with disability in vision are concerned, only blind employees are entitled to conveyance allowance as per Ext.P2. But for employees having disability in vision, by Ext.P4 Government order, a relaxation was given and instead of blind employees, Government servants having vision less than 3/60 or field vision less than 10 degree in both eyes also were made eligible for grant of conveyance allowance in terms of Ext.P2 Government order. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to conveyance allowance, because, as is revealed from Ext.P1 disability certificate, orthopedic disability and disability in vision of the petitioner together come only to 40%. Therefore, the petitioner's orthopedic disability is less than 40% and she has one good eye insofar as she is blind only in one eye. The learned Government Pleader submits that, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to conveyance allowance as per Exts.P2 and Government orders and the amounts already paid had been made under a mistake. 3. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the object of the Government orders is to give a concession in the matter of traveling allowance to the physically handicapped persons and insofar as admittedly the petitioner is totally blind in one eye , Exts.P2 and P4 Government orders can be made applicable to the petitioner. w.p.c.11439/07 3 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am of opinion that the very object of giving conveyance allowance to the physically handicapped persons is to compensate for their difficulties in mobility. Therefore, it is not merely for giving some concession to the physically handicapped persons that Exts.P2 and P4 Government orders have been issued. As such, only if the mobility of the employee is restricted on account of the disability to the extent stipulated in Exts.P2 and P4 orders, such employee is entitled to conveyance allowance. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, the total vision and orthopedic disability together of the petitioner comes only to 40% and therefore, her orthopedic disability alone would be less than 40%. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled for travelling allowance on account of orthopedic disability insofar as for orthopedically handicapped employees the permanent partial disability should be minimum 40% for becoming eligible for conveyance allowance as per Ext.P2 Government order. As far as disability in vision is concerned, originally, by Ext.P2, conveyance allowance was admissible only for totally blind employees. That has been slightly relaxed in Ext.P4 Government order and Government servants having vision less than 3/60 or field vision less than 10 degree in both eyes were also made eligible for grant of conveyance allowance in terms of Ext.P2. Here admittedly the w.p.c.11439/07 4 petitioner has one good eye and her other eye only is blind. That being so, the petitioner does not come within the preview of Exts.P2 or P4 Government orders. Consequently, she is not eligible for conveyance allowance. It is declared so. However, conveyance allowance already paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered from the petitioner. This will not stand in the way of the petitioner proving that her disability is within the parameters prescribed in Exts.P2 and P4 Government orders, by producing appropriate medical certificates and claiming conveyance allowance again. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge