Delhi High Court
Sh Yogender Kumar Varma vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing ... on 21 April, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was heard finally for disposal.
2. The petitioner, a Driver, appointed by the respondent DTC in the year 1979 suffered major fractures in his left leg due to an accident, on 11.9.2003. This had to be treated extensively and the petitioner underwent surgery. It is his case that for sometime he was on medical leave after which the DTC, through its medical board, determined that it would be appropriate to assign him light duties.
3. Learned counsel submitted that as per provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, DTC is under an obligation to ensure that such disabilities do not come in the way of the petitioner's employment and he is not discriminated against, in the work place. It was contended that the attitude of the DTC not passing any final order is contrary to Section 47(1) which obliges every employer to determine whether the employee, who incurred the disability, can be assigned the same tasks in relation to the post he was holding at the time of occurrence of disabilities or assign him to a suitable post and that in any case DTC is under a liability to ensure that protection of pay-scale and other service benefits is granted.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court issued an order on 17th March, 2006 by which the petitioner was directed to be examined on 22nd March, 2006. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was indeed medically examined by the board constituted for the purpose but after 11th April, 2006, the respondents have withdrawn work.
5. The DTC has not filed any counter affidavit. Even though, notice was issued in these proceedings on 26th April, 2005 and subsequently too opportunities was granted. Today, counsel for the DTC submitted, on instructions, that the Medical Board which examined the petitioner determined that he was not fit to perform the duties as a Driver and had recommended rest for three months. It was also submitted that his suitability for other jobs would be determined after the period of three months.
6. I have considered the material on record and the contentions of the parties. The DTC has not disputed that the petitioner indeed suffered a fracture which led to his disability. It is also not equally disputed that from 9.8.2004 he was assigned light duties initially for a period of three months and that the situation remains unaltered today. That arrangement continued till 11th April, 2006. The provisions of Section 47 are clear. They oblige every employer, of a public establishment, not to dispense with or reduce the rank of an employee who contracts disabilities during the service. The provision also further obliges the employer to shift the employee incurring a disability to some suitable post in case he is not in a position to discharge duties for which he was initially recruited, or where he was working at the time he incurred the disability. In such eventualities, it has to ensure pay benefits and also grant of other service benefits with view to guaranteeing that the employee is not discriminated against.
7. Having regard to the admitted factual matrix, whereby the DTC has not seriously dispute the petitioner's accident and his inability to discharge duties of a Driver, and also having regard to the statement made by its counsel today, a direction is issued to the respondent DTC to issue an appropriate order indicating the alternative or suitable job to which the petitioner may be assigned in the facts of this case. The order shall be issued within a period of six weeks from today. The respondents are also directed to disburse all pending arrears of salary and allowances which are legitimately due to the petitioner, to him within six weeks from today.
8.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
