Madras High Court
The General Manager vs N.Raj Kumar on 18 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No. 2377 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No. 2377 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No. 16745 of 2024
1.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Villupuram Ltd.,
Villupuram - 605 602.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Villupuram Region. ... Appellants
Vs.
N.Raj Kumar ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 31.01.2024 made in W.P.No.28181 of 2023.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Aswin
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.N.J.Joseph Stalin
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 2377 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
We see no merit in the challenge to the order of the writ Court. The
respondent, who was working as a Driver suffered an injury in his spine
during the course of his employment, resulting in him, being declared unfit
to continue the job as a Driver. The appellant, by the order impugned in the
writ petition required him to obtain a Conductor license and offered him the
Conductor’s job. Contending that his physical condition will not permit him
to work even as a Conductor, the respondent challenged the order requiring
him to obtain a Conductor's license and join duty as a Conductor.
2. The Writ Court found that the nature of the injuries suffered by the
respondent in the accident and the disability suffered by him are such that
he cannot serve as a Conductor. On the said conclusion, the writ Court
quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition and required the
respondent to assign an alternate work. It was also made clear that the
respondent would be entitled to back-wages for the period of non-
employment. Hence, this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. We have heard Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel apperaing for the
appellants and Mr.N.J.Joseph Stalin, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
4. Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the Authorities took note of the injury and
disability certificate issued by the medical board of the Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital, Chennai and offered employment as a
Conductor to the respondent. It was, he who was unwilling to take up the
job therefore, the Authority cannot be mulcted with the liability of payment
of back-wages apart from reinstating him.
5. Contending contra, Mr.N.J.Joseph Stalin, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent would draw our attention to the provisions of
Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and contend
that there is a statutory obligation created on the Employer to provide some
other job with the same pay scale and service benefits. He would also
submit that the 2nd proviso to Sub-Section 4 of Section-20 of the said Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requires the Employer to create a supernumerary post, until the suitable post
is available or until the Employee attains the age of superannuation, if such
post is not available immediately. When statute creates an obligation on the
Employer to provide alternate employment to the person, who suffers a
disability during his employment, the same cannot be taken away by the
Courts. The Writ Court has found that the respondent cannot work as a
Conductor and he has to be accommodated in some other post, in the Office.
6. It is now stated that the respondent has been accommodated in the
Office and he is working. Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would make an appeal to re-consider the direction to pay back-
wages. We are afraid, we cannot countenance the request of the learned
counsel. The Act namely, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
mandates alternative employment with pay protection. If we are to consider
the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be in violation
to the provisions of the said Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. We therefore, see no ground to interfere with the conclusions of the
writ Court. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is accordingly,
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneus petition is
closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
18.02.2025
kkn
Index: No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : No
To:
1.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Villupuram Ltd.,
Villupuram - 605 602.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Villupuram Region.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KKN
and
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
