Telangana State Road Transport ... vs K.R.Chander,
2021 Latest Caselaw 304 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                  AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

              WRIT APPEAL Nos.21, 33 and 34 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.

Learned counsel for the appellants states that in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC vs. B.S.Reddy

reported as (2018) 12 SCC 704, nothing further survives for

adjudication in the present appeals.

2. The relevant paras of the aforesaid decision are extracted

below:-

"2. The issue raised in this set of cases is whether benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is available to those covered by Section 2(i) of the said Act alone or applies even to persons not covered thereby.

3. The employees in question suffered disability during employment and they sought benefit of Section 47 of the Act to the effect that their services could not be dispensed with on account of the said disability, nor their rank could be reduced and they could only be shifted to some other post, with same pay scale and service benefits. The claim was contested by the appellant Transport Corporations with the plea that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act was available only to those covered by Section 2(i) which defines "disability". The said stand was supported on the basis of judgments of the High

Court of Delhi in Hawa Singh v. DTC reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 697 and Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh reported as 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1533. The High Court of Delhi dissented from the judgment of the Madras High Court in G.Muthu v. T.N.STC Ltd. reported as 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 743 which lays down that the definition under Section 2(i) could not control the provision of Section 47 of the Act, as the context of Section 47 of the Act requires a different meaning to be given to the word "disability".

4. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court which has been followed in the impugned order and approve the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in Hawa Singh v. DTC and Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh. We do not find any reason to hold that expression "disability" in Section 47 of the Act is used in a different context so as not to go by the definition given in Section 2(i) of the Act. We also note that even though Section 2(i) of the Act may not cover every disabled, the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporations covers even those employees who are not covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. Thus, those who are disabled within the meaning of Section 2(i) are not without any benefit whatsoever. They are, thus, entitled to invoke such schemes but not Section 47 of the Act.

5. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in above terms and hold that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act will be available only to those who are covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. No costs.

6. It will be open for the appellant Corporations to take decision on individual grievances of the employees and the employees are at liberty to take their remedies in terms of the above judgment."

3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellant

No.1/Corporation has a scheme that covers those employees who are

not covered under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,

whereunder adequate benefits are being extended to the dependants of

those employees who have been found to be medically unfit.

4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the

appellants, the present appeals are disposed of along with the pending

applications, if any, with directions to the appellants to extend

relevant benefits to the dependants of the medically unfit employees

whose services have been dispensed with.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

05.02.2021 JSU