Telangana High Court
M/S.Lucky Seeds Pvt.Ltd., vs The Principal Secretary, on 12 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No. 46752 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"... to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in fixing the pay of the petitioner in the category of Record
tracer and not paying the salary from 01.11.2013 to 19.04.2014 to the
petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C.
Service Regulations, the provisions of Act 1 of 1996 and the Section 47
of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and as well as violation of
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and
consequently direct the Respondents to fix the pay in the cadre of Grade
II Driver and pay the salary from 01.11.2013 to 19.04.2014 and arrears
thereof to the petitioner and pass such further other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the
case."
2. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Sri Krishna Karthik, learned counsel
representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-Corporation submits that the present lis is covered by
the judgment of Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation rep.by its Managing Director v.
B.S.Reddy 1 and conceded for disposal of the present writ petition in
terms of thereof.
3. In B.S.Reddy's case (1 supra), the Apex Court has decided the
issue with regard to extending the benefit of Section 47 of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as under:
2018(12) SCC 704
4. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High
Court which has been followed in the impugned order [Telangana
SRTC v. P. Ramesh, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 328] and approve the view
taken by the High Court of Delhi in Hawa Singh v. DTC [Hawa Singh
v. DTC, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 697 : (2012) 134 FLR 1022] and Airport
Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh [Airport
Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh, 2005 SCC
OnLine Del 1533] . 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."
4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for both
parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.S.Reddy's case
(supra), this writ petition is also disposed of, directing the
respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner and
pass orders in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
14.11.2023
Nvl
