In a major reprieve for 14 drivers whose services were terminated by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) after they were diagnosed with colour blindness, the Bombay High Court (HC) on Thursday directed MSRTC to reinstate them and pay them pending wages.

The bench of justice SJ Kathawalla and justice RI Chagla held that MSRTC’s move to discontinue services of the drivers was in breach of provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Services of all 14 drivers were discontinued between April and June 2018 after their colour blindness was confirmed by experts from Sir JJ Hospital, Mumbai. MSRTC had also rejected their representations for reinstatement, following which the drivers moved the high court.

HC upheld their claim and said, “Petitioners have admittedly acquired their disability viz colour blindness during the course of their employment,” said the bench. “As a result, the petitioners are now entitled to alternative jobs as reasonable accommodation under Section 20 of the 2016 Act,” it added.

The bench said Section 20(4) of the Disabilities Act, 2016 mandate that the petitioners ought to be shifted to an alternative post within MSRTC with the same pay scale and service benefits and if it is not possible for MSRTC to adjust the petitioners in any post immediately, they have to be kept on supernumerary posts until suitable posts become available.

It has now directed MSRTC to reinstate all the 14 drivers in service on posts suitable to their present condition, within four weeks. The bench has also directed the state transport body to pay full back wages to the drivers as their services were terminated in breach of their statutory rights, and it would be “wholly inequitable and unjust” to deny them full back wages.

The bench also struck down clause 11 of the July 2016 circular issued by MSRTC, which treated intervening period between medical examination of drivers and a decision thereon, as leave without pay. HC said it was contrary to the provisions of the 2016 Act.

Source Link

Picture Source :