[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.D.Meganathan on 7 January, 2026
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.3766 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
W.A.No.3766 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.31092 of 2025
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
Villupuram District.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
Kanchipuram Region,
Kanchipuram District. ... Appellants
-Vs-
S.D.Meganathan ... Respondent
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order
dated 19.12.2024 in W.P.No.17210 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Vinothraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
W.A.No.3766 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated
19.12.2024 made in W.P.No.17210 of 2024.
2. The respondent / writ petitioner was working as a Driver at the
appellant Transport Corporation. Since he has suffered with various ailments
especially Neurology problem, he became sick and therefore, he was not able to
continue the Driver job. At that juncture, he had been referred to the Medical
Board at Chennai and he had undergone the medical test from 29.08.2022 to
13.09.2022 and once again undergone medical test from 23.02.2024 to
07.03.2024.
3. However, on 19.09.2023, the office of the second appellant orally
terminated the services of the respondent / writ petitioner.
4. Only at that juncture, the respondent / writ petitioner had approached
the writ Court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein
who stood as respondents in the writ petition to forthwith provide suitable
alternative employment to the respondent / writ petitioner with pay protection,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
continuity of service and backwages from the date of disengagement till date on
which he is provided with alternative light duty as per Section 20(4) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
5. The said writ petition having been considered was allowed by the writ
Court by passing the following order:
“5. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of
the case and taking note of the proceedings of the Special Board,
Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai dated 05.04.2024
indicating that the petitioner has suffered 60% disability, the
authorities are directed to sanction the eligible position, whatever
the petitioner is entitled to. Further, the salary shall be paid to the
petitioner for the pending months without any further delay, if not
already paid.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.”
As against which only, the present intra-Court appeal has been directed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that
based on the direction given by the writ Court, already a proceeding has been
given by the first appellant on 19.02.2025 directing the second appellant to give
him alternative job and thereafter, whether the second appellant had given the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
alternative job or not is not known as of now, therefore, he wants to get
instructions in this regard.
7. It is an appeal filed by the appellants, i.e., first and second appellants
jointly. The first appellant issued proceedings on 19.02.2025 to the second
appellant to give alternative job to the respondent / writ petitioner but the
second appellant whether has complied with the order by giving alternative
employment to the respondent / writ petitioner, if it is not known, this appeal
itself is liable to be dismissed on that ground itself.
8. That apart, as per the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 especially under Section 20(4), no Establishment shall dispense with
or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her
service. If that being so, dispensing with the service of the respondent / writ
petitioner by making oral termination and subsequently delay in giving the
alternative employment are all against the provisions of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, therefore, the respondent / writ petitioner since is entitled to get
alternative job and if gets the alternative job, he is also entitled to get the salary
and other perquisites, the same cannot be denied by the employer under the
provisions of the Act and the relief sought for granted through the impugned
order cannot be found fault with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
9. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ
appeal, as a result of which, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence it
is dismissed. The orders passed by the writ Court shall be complied with by the
appellants within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, failing which, it is open to the respondent / writ petitioner to take
any coercive steps for not complying the order of the writ Court. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(R.S.K., J.) ( S.S.A., J.)
07.01.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
Note: Issue order copy by 09.01.2026.
To
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
Villupuram District.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
Kanchipuram Region,
Kanchipuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
vji
and
07.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 04:36:08 pm )
