Bombay High Court
Shivaji Pundlik Pophale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 August, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 9019.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9019 OF 2015
Shivaji S/o Pundlik Pophale,
Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Service,
R/o Jai Santoshi Mata Nagar,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02. The Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Latur Division, Latur.
03. The Depot Manager,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Udgir Depot, Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. .. Respondents
Ms. Supriya L. Pansambal, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. S. Badakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 22ND AUGUST, 2016.
2 wp 9019.15
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner came to be appointed as a driver with the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1980 and worked continuously. In the
year 2013 the petitioner suffered disability. He suffered severe
sensor neural hearing loss. The petitioner was declared unfit to
perform his work as a driver. The petitioner asked the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide any alternate job. Initially
the respondents asked the petitioner to perform function of a
conductor, but as the petitioner was not holding necessary batch,
the respondents did not employ the petitioner on the post of
conductor. Even the petitioner was ready to work as a peon,
however, respondents stated that, there are already surplus
peons and no employment was provided. As per the provisions of
the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Right and Full Participation) Act 1995, the respondents are duty
bound to provide for an alternate employment and protect his pay
scale.
3. Mrs. Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and
3 submits that, the petitioner has suffered hearing loss. The
respondents had offered alternate employment to the petitioner
3 wp 9019.15
to work as a conductor, but the petitioner failed to obtain
necessary batch, as such the petitioner could not be appointed as
a conductor. The petitioner also could not be appointed as a
peon, as there was an objection that, there are only fourteen
posts meant for peon and twenty two persons are working as
peon. Already surplus peons were working, as such benefit could
not be accorded. The learned counsel submits that, subsequently
the petitioner on 01.06.2015 had given in writing that the
petitioner does not want any alternate employment and his
amount with the respondents be given. According to the learned
counsel, in view of the said letter also, the petitioner had waived
his right.
4. We have also heard the learned Assistant Government
Pleader.
5. The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act 1995 (for short
"Said Act") is a beneficial and social welfare legislation meant for
the persons with disability. The provisions of the said Act are
also meant for those employees who have sustained disablement
during the course of employment. The provisions of the said
enactment mandate that the employer is bound to accommodate
the employee in another employment with it protecting his pay
scale. It appears that, the petitioner was offered job of conductor,
4 wp 9019.15
but the petitioner was not possessing necessary batch. The
petitioner could have obtained the same, had he made some
efforts. We are not much impressed by the letter relied by the
respondent dated 01.06.2015, said to have been written by the
petitioner. The petitioner was without pay for all these years, as
such for getting his amount back, he had no option but to give
said letter. Now the petitioner is at the verge of attaining age of
superannuation. Hardly three months of service would remain.
No purpose would be served by asking the respondents to employ
the petitioner for remaining three months. As we have observed,
the petitioner did not take pains to get the conductor's batch and
join the service, we are not inclined to grant any backwages to
the petitioner. However, the period till the date of the petitioner
attaining superannuation needs to be considered for whatever
retirement benefits the petitioner would be entitled.
6. In the result, we pass following order.
7. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall consider the period upto
December 2016 that is the date till the petitioner would attain
age of superannuation as a period the petitioner is in service.
The same be considered for computing the retiral benefits,
pension payable, if any, though we are not giving backwages for
the said period.
5 wp 9019.15
Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/August 16
