Karnataka High Court
B Chandrashekar vs Karnataka State Road on 20 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
WA No. 1522 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
B CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O MUNDAPPA BELCHADA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/A BANDITHADKA HOUSE,
POST KANYANA,
BANTWALA TALUK-574279,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed
by KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
MARIGANGAIAH TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PREMAKUMARI
KSRTC, K.H.ROAD,
Location: HIGH SHANTHINAGAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560027,
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
NO.58106/2018 DATED 06/10/2023 OR b)GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF OR RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
WA No. 1522 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Appellant/workman is before this Court under
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961
questioning the correctness and legality of order dated
06.10.2023 in W.P.No.58106/2018 by which, order dated
24.10.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru in Application No.4/2015 is set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, appellant was
working as driver in the respondent-Corporation. He met
with an accident on 29.07.2004. As he suffered injuries in
the said accident, the Medical Board of the KSRTC
Hospital, Jayanagar issued certificate on 25.10.2005
stating that appellant is unfit for the Driver post in KSRTC.
Subsequently, alternate duty is assigned to the
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
appellant/petitioner as Office Assistant by protecting his
pay. Long thereafter, appellant/petitioner submitted a
representation on 14.10.2015 along with medical
certificate, requesting to accord allowance applicable to
the physically handicapped persons. Along with the
representation, medical certificate dated 31.01.2016 was
enclosed wherein it indicates that appellant/petitioner was
suffering from 40% disability. Respondent-Corporation by
order dated 20.08.2016, accorded the benefits available to
physically handicapped persons to the appellant from
01.06.2015 and notionally fixed his pay. Not being
satisfied with the same, appellant/petitioner approached
the Labour Court in Application No.4/2015. The Labour
Court by order dated 24.10.2017 held that the
appellant/petitioner is entitled for conveyance allowance of
Rs.200/- per month from the date of accident till
09.10.2019 and also Rs.400/- per month from 10.10.2009
to 07.07.2014 and further held that he is entitled for 6%
of his basic pay towards vehicle allowance. Further, Labour
Court also held that appellant/petitioner is entitled for
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
applicable pay scale from the date of accident and
difference amount after deduction of the amount paid
already.
3. Questioning the same, respondent-Corporation
was before this Court in W.P.No.58106/2018. Learned
Single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the writ
petition and set aside order dated 24.10.2017 passed by
the Labour Court in Application No.4/2015, holding that
the disability certificate indicting that the appellant
suffering 40% of disability was produced for the first time
in the year 2016 and he would be entitled for disability
allowance from 2016. Aggrieved by order of the learned
Single, appellant/petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
Sri.M.C.Basavaraju would contend that the
appellant/petitioner would be entitled for all allowance
which are applicable to the physically handicapped persons
from the date of accident i.e., 29.07.2004 and non-
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
granting the said allowance to the appellant/petitioner is
arbitrary and opposed to the Circulars of the respondent-
Corporation. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of
this Court to Ex.R1 dated 06.10.2005 submits that the
Medical Board as on the said date has declared that he is
unfit for driver post in KSRTC and as such, he would be
entitled for all allowances from the said date. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that
appellant/petitioner has suffered accident in the year 2004
itself and he would be entitled for all benefits from the said
date. Further, learned counsel would submit that the
benefits granted in the year 2016 is also not paid till this
date. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka appearing for
respondent-Corporation would submit that from the date
of accident, the appellant is assigned alternate work and
his pay is protected from the said date. Further, it is
submitted that the benefits which are available to a
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
physically disabled person is granted to the
appellant/petitioner from the date of the medical
certificate dated 31.01.2016 which indicated the disability
at 40%. Prior to that, appellant/petitioner had not placed
on record any disability certificate claiming disability
allowance. Further, learned counsel would submit that
providing alternate work is different from granting the
allowance applicable to the physically handicapped
persons. Thus, she prays for dismissing the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the
only point which falls for our consideration is as to,
"Whether the learned Single Judge is justified
in setting aside the order dated 24.10.2017 in
Application No.4/2015 passed by the Labour Court,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru?"
7. Answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner
while working as driver in the respondent-Corporation met
with an accident on 29.07.2004. Based on the Medical
Board Certificate dated 06.10.2005 (Annexure-R1) the
appellant was assigned alternate work i.e., Office Assistant
by protecting his pay in terms of the policy of the
respondent-Corporation. Long thereafter, appellant made
representation along with medical certificate dated
31.01.2016 which indicated that appellant/petitioner is
suffering from 40% disability, seeking allowance applicable
to physically challenged persons. Considering the same,
respondent-Corporation granted benefits applicable to the
physically challenged persons to the appellant/petitioner
from 01.06.2015 by order dated 20.08.2016. It is to be
noted that, when a driver for any reason becomes unfit for
the post of driver, providing alternate work is different from
sanctioning allowance applicable to physically challenged
persons. The appellant/petitioner was already granted
alternate work, on he becoming unfit for the post of driver.
At that point of time, it was not the case of the petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
that he was suffering from more than 40% disability.
Whereas, for the first time, appellant/petitioner along with
medical certificate dated 31.01.2016 claimed allowance
applicable to physically handicapped persons which was
accorded by order dated 20.08.2016. In that, the
appellant/petitioner would be entitled for disability
allowance only from the date he produced medical
certificate indicating 40% disability.
9. Learned Single Judge is justified in coming to
the conclusion that cause of action for appellant's claim
would arise only from the date which he is declared to
have been suffering from disability not less than 40% i.e.,
on 02.06.2015.
10. Thus, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ
appeal stands dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:47062-DB
11. If the benefit granted if any under order dated
20.08.2016 is not released till this date, to the appellant,
the same shall be extended forthwith.
12. In view of dismissal of the appeal,
I.A.No.1/2023 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
