N. S. Gulzar Pasha vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 5275 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              W.A. No.483 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
                            IN
             W.P. No.52496 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

N.S. GULZAR PASHA
S/O SYED ABDUL ALEEM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT IN LEGAL SECTION
O/O. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR
R/AT NOORAPURA
GANDLAHALLI POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
       TRANSPORT CORPORATION
       CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD
       SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
                                2



2.   THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL AND ENVIRONMENT)
     KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION
     CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD
     SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

3.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
     KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION
     KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101.

4.   THE DEPOT MANAGER
     KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION
     SRINIVASAPURA
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.)
                              ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION 52496/2019 DATED 06.02.2021.

      THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed

the validity of the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been partly allowed and appellant has been

permitted to discharge light work till he is examined by a

duly constituted Medical Board. It is further directed that the

constitution of the Board and certification shall be completed

within a period of 60 days from 06.02.2021.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nutshell are

that on 28.04.1999, the appellant was appointed as driver

cum conductor in Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for

short). The appellant, while on duty met with a road accident

on 18.02.2006. The appellant, thereafter, submitted a

representation to sanction medical leave from 19.02.2006 to

25.03.2006. The appellant was advised to perform light office

work. Thereupon, the respondent on 02.09.2008 was

provided with light work in legal section in the office of

respondent No.3.

3. On 31.07.2013, the appellant underwent medical

examination before the medical board. The medical board

issued a certificate stating that appellant had suffered

disability to the extent of 40% and recommended re-

assessment after two years. The appellant, thereafter, by an

order dated 09.11.2013 was assigned with light duties. The

appellant by a communication dated 23.01.2015 was again

asked to appear before the medical board. The medical board

issued a certificate in which the percentage of disability was

not mentioned. However, a recommendation was made that

the appellant be assigned light duties due to medical

reasons. Thereafter, an order dated 06.12.2019 was issued

by which appellant was asked to again appear before the

medical board for assessment of his disability.

4. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a

writ petition namely WP No.52496/2019. The learned Single

Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the

appellant to appear before the medical board of Sanjay

Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru. The respondents were directed

to constitute the board within a period of 60 days. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has already been referred to the medical board and

the medical board has already issued a disability certificate in

favor of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge

ought to have appreciated that the Respondents were not

justified in directing the appellant once again to appear

before the medical board. On the other hand, learned counsel

for the Respondents has supported the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

A disability certificate has to be issued in Form III appended

to the Rules framed under the Act. The disability certificate

which was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2013 describes

his disability at 40% and further states that the aforesaid

disability is likely to improve and it is further stated that the

re-assessment of the disability is recommended after two

years. Thereafter, another disability certificate was issued on

16.06.2014 wherein the disability is assessed at 40% and it

has been stated to be non progressive. The medical board of

Victoria Hospital on 08.06.2015 has issued a certificate

wherein the percentage of disability has not been mentioned.

It has also not been mentioned whether the disability of the

appellant is likely to improve.

7. Therefore, on 06.12.2019 the Corporation has

directed the appellant to appear before the medical board as

the certificate produced by the appellant dated 08.06.2015

does not disclose the extent of disability. It is pertinent to

note that the aforesaid certificate is not in the prescribed

form. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly directed to

appear before the medical board. Therefore, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge. However, it is directed that if the appellant

appears before the medical board, the medical board shall

examine the extent of disability and shall also ascertain

whether the disability is likely to improve in the future and

the medical board shall clearly state so in the disability

certificate. Needless to state that the aforesaid disability

certificate shall be issued in Form III appended to the Rules

framed under the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid

certificate, the Corporation shall take a decision with regard

to the assignment of duty to the appellant. The aforesaid

exercise shall be completed within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the

appellant shall be assigned light work. To the aforesaid

extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

modified.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS