Telangana High Court
Md. Saleem Pasha vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 11 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.43642 of 2022
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in retiring the
petitioner from service with retrospective effect from 19.01.2019
vide Proc.No.E2/786(01)/2019.MP., dated 21.01.2019, without
providing alternative suitable employment and not considering
petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2020, the present Writ
Petition is filed.
2) Heard Sri Mr.Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for
the respondents.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as driver in
the month of April, 2010, after undergoing due process of selection
in Hyderabad Region. Subsequently, his services were regularized
w.e.f.01.09.2013 and accordingly he has been working
continuously till he was made to retire from service prematurely
w.e.f.19.01.2019 vide impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019
wherein the petitioner was declared as unfit for any post in the
Corporation due to disability sustained after entering into the
Corporation, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted
that while the petitioner was working in third respondent Depot, he
-2- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
sustained a fracture injury while travelling on a motor bike on
30.03.2016 at about 2230 hours after completion of his duties on
that day. Initially, the petitioner was treated at NIMS hospital and
the said hospital has estimated the cost of treatment as
Rs.60,000/-, which was also informed to third respondent vide
letter dated 12.04.2016. Accordingly, he has taken treatment at R-
2 hospital. Since he was not completely recovered at R.2 Hospital,
the said hospital has referred him to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad,
where the petitioner has incurred Rs.60,000/- towards treatment.
After the treatment, NIMS Hospital, has issued Medical Certificate
dated 11.04.2018 advising the Management of respondent
Corporation that he may be allotted desk duties or other than
driver duties. Accordingly, for some period, his services were
extracted on other duties i.e. other than driver duties, out of
designation basis, through letter dated 04.11.2017 as issued by
the Chief Personnel Manager to Regional Manager, Hyderabad
Region. While so, the RTC Dispensary, Musheerabad, also
examined the petitioner on 08.06.2018 wherein he was declared
unfit for the post of driver i.e. A.1 category due to right leg fracture.
Hence, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 on
13.06.2018 with a request to send him to Medical Board for
examination on medical appeal wherein he was examined on
21.11.2018 and declared unfit for the post of driver, against which,
-3- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
he was examined by the Medical Board on 08.01.2018 on the
representation of third respondent letter dated 27.11.2018 and the
said Board has declared him medically unfit for the post of driver
and other alternative posts without any valid reason. Therefore,
the action of the Board in declaring the petitioner as unfit for all
other alternative posts is without any basis and valid reasons and
in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood and bread to
his family members apart from violation of Section 20 (4) of the
Right of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short 'Act of
2016'). Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 23.11.2020
requesting for re-medical examination for job as he has no source
of income for his family and he is hardly having age of 41 years
and still having 19 years of service for his actual retirement.
Hence, retiring the petitioner from service at younger age
prematurely amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that
the petitioner has studied upto 10th Class and is suitable to the
post of Shramik and Record Keeper and any other suitable job.
Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass
appropriate orders in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed
on the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1789/2000
and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana 1.
AIR 1995 SC 519
-4- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while admitting the
fact that the services of the petitioner was engaged as contract
driver on 26.02.2010 and his services were regularized from
01.09.2015 at Mehadipatnam Depot. Further, the petitioner was
sent for periodical medical examination to R.1 Organization,
Mehadipatnam Dispensary, wherein the petitioner was found unfit
for A.1 Category driver due to "Pedaloedeue RT Leg" vide MC
No.0/148439, dated 02.11.2018. It is further submitted that on
considering the representation of the petitioner, he was directed for
re-medical examination for appeal to R.2 Hospital where he was
found unfit for A.1 Category (Driver) due to "Painful RT Leg ILN-
INSITU" on 08.01.2019 and was declared unfit for the post of
Driver (A.1 category) and also unfit for all other categories as per
the Medical Standards of first respondent Organization. Therefore,
the impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.3 vide
Proceedings No.E2/786(01)/2019.MP, dated 21.01.2019, retiring
the petitioner on medical grounds. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has been declared unfit for the post of driver by duly
constituted Medical Board of the Corporation and as per the
medical standards of the Corporation. Further, the Medical Board
of the Corporation is appropriate authority to certify the medical
fitness of an employee and the opinion of the said Board shall be
final. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act of 2016
-5- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
do not apply to the respondent Corporation as the Corporation was
exempted from the provisions of the said Act by the Government of
Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II),
dated 24.02.2018. Hence, the provision of Section 20 of the Act of
2016 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, he
cannot be provided any alternate employment as claimed by him.
Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.3529/2017 & batch, dated 23.02.2017, the benefit
of Section 47 of the Act of 2016 is available to only those who are
governed by the disabilities specified in Section 2 (i) of the Act of
2016. Since the petitioner has been declared medically unfit for
the post of driver and retired from service, he can opt either for
additional monetary fund in terms of Regulation 6A(5) of TGRTC
Employees (Service) Regulations or employment to any of his
dependants as per eligibility. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the
writ petition. Reliance has also been placed on Writ Appeal No.380
of 2017 & batch dated 05.06.2017 and Writ Appeal No.196 of 2017
& batch dated 25.03.2022.
5) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the co-employee of the petitioner by name M.Srinivas Rao
(Emp.No.825871), who is similarly situated to that of the
petitioner, was also declared unfit due to Axonal Neupathy based
on the medical report given by the Medical Committee and he was
-6- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
given alternative employment as Shramik and posted to
Bhadrachalam Depot as Shramik vide Office Order of the Depot
Manager, Bhadrachalam, dated 17.12.2018. Likewise, one
Mr.K.Ramchander, driver (Emp.No.208173), Baskar, driver
(Emp.No.221668), A.L. Khan, driver (Emp.No.219548),
V. Venkatesham, driver (Emp.No.220183), and Md. Ismail, driver,
(Emp.No.218539), who were also declared as medically unfit on
medical grounds, were given the alternative posts of Shramik in
their respective Depots whereas the petitioner was not extended
the said benefit. Therefore, the action of the respondents amounts
to discrimination, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned
counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment on par
with similarly situated persons.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
respective parties and perused the material on record.
7) As seen from the record, admittedly, while the petitioner was
working as driver, he was sent for periodical medical examination
to respondent No.1 Musheerabad Dispensary wherein he was
found unfit for the post of A.1 category driver due to
PEDALOEDEUE RIGHT LEG IMPLANTS SITU" vide
M.C.No.0/14849, dated 02.11.2018. Further, on considering the
appeal of the petitioner, he was directed for re-medical examination
-7- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
to R.2 hospital wherein also he was found declared unfit for the
post of A.1 category driver due to "Painful Right Leg ILN INSITU" on
08.01.2019 and also declared unfit for all other categories as per
the medical standards of the respondent Corporation.
Consequently, vide proceedings Rc.No.E2/786 (01)/ 2019, dated
21.01.2019, respondent No.3 retired the petitioner on medical
grounds w.e.f.19.01.2019 in terms of Regulation 6 (A) (5) (b) of
TSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1964.
8) Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the provisions of Act of 2016 is concerned, this Court
is of the considered view that the said reliance is misconceived as
the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section
2(i) which stipulates disability covered under the Act of 2016.
9) Here, it is pertinent to state that while dealing with the
provisions of Act of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.3529 of 2017 batch, dated 23.02.2017, has held that
the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 2016 is available to the
persons, who suffered disability in terms of Section 2 (i) of the Act
of 2016.
10) Following the above referred judgment dated 23.02.2017, the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.380 of 2017 &
batch, has held as under:
-8- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
"Following the order of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal
No3529 of 2017 and batch dated 23.02.2017, these Writ Appeals
are also disposed of holding that the benefit of Section 47 of the
Act shall be available only to those who are covered by the
disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act; it is open to the
appellant-Corporation to take a decision, on individual grievances
of the respondent-writ petitioners, with utmost expedition
preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order; and the respondent-writ petitioners are at liberty
thereafter to avail their remedies in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court."
11) From the above, it is clear that the benefit of the Act of 2016
is available only to those who are covered by the disabilities
specified in Section 2(i) of the Act.
12) Even otherwise, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.02.2019, the
Government of Telangana had exempted the respondent
Corporation from the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2016.
Relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as under:
"8. Government after careful examination of the entire
matter have decided to accept the recommendation of the inter
Departmental Committee and hereby order to exempt Telangana
State Road Transport Corporation from the provisions of Section
20 of the "Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016" in respect
of Drivers, Conductors and Mechanics (including Artisans),
invoking the powers conferred on the State Government, under
the proviso to Section 20 (1), subject to the following conditions:
-9- PK, J
WP_43642_2022
1. TSRTC should continue to extend all the benefits i.e.
Additional Monetary Benefit or compassionate appointment in
case of retirements on medical invalidation.
2. TSRTC should subject its employees to three
levels of medical scrutiny before retiring them on medical
invalidation."
13) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent-Corporation
is exempted from the provisions of Act of 2016. Hence, the
petitioner is restrained from seeking any relief from the
respondent-Corporation under the provisions of Act of 2016.
14) As regards discrimination urged by the petitioner is
concerned, the record discloses that as Mr. M.Srinivas Rao, driver
(Emp.No.) was declared unfit only for the post of A.1 category
driver, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared or
equated with that of said M.Srinivas Rao, as the the petitioner was
declared unfit for the post of A.1 category driver as well as all other
posts. Therefore, the said ground is unavailable to the petitioner.
15) However, as congregated from the record, vide proceedings
Rc.E2/813(1)/2017-MP, dated 27.07.2017, the Depot Manager,
Mehadipatnam Depot, has advised the Assistant Manager (T),
Mehadipatnam Depot, to utilize the services of the petitioner on out
of designation duties like controller duty at Mehdipatnam Rythu
Bazar point for a period of three months. Thereafter, the Chief
Personnel Manager vide proceedings No.GC3/255(21)/2017-
- 10 - PK, J
WP_43642_2022
PO(T&W), dated 04.11.2017, had accorded permission to the
Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, to provide out of
designation duties for a further period of three months to the
petitioner.
16) From the above two proceedings, it is thus clear that after
the petitioner met with accident on 30.03.2016, his services were
utilized by the Corporation by allotting him out of designation
duties for a considerable period and having done so, what
prevented the respondent authorities in further continuing to allot
the petitioner out of designation duties is not forthcoming from the
record.
17) That apart, in the initial medical examination conducted by
Musheerabad Dispensary, the petitioner was found and declared
unfit only for the post of A.1 category (driver) vide MC
No.0/148439, dated 02.11.2018, whereas in the subsequent
medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, the
petitioner was declared unfit for the post of Driver A.1 category as
well as unfit for all other alternate categories, though it is evident
from the record that after the accident the petitioner had
discharged other than designated duties for a period of six months
but the reasons for declaring the petitioner as unfit for all other
posts are not forthcoming, more particularly, when the doctors of
- 11 - PK, J
WP_43642_2022
Musheerabad Dispensary have declared the petitioner unfit only
for the post of driver (A.1 category).
18) That apart, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.02.2018, the
Government while granting exemption to the respondent
Corporation from the provision of Section 20 of the Act of 2016,
has imposed condition at clause 8(2) thereof stating that employee
shall be subjected to three levels of medical scrutiny before retiring
them on medical invalidation. In the case on hand, the material on
record reveals only two levels of medical scrutiny of the petitioner
i.e. one at Mehedipatnam Dispensary and another by the Medical
board.
19) In view of the above discrepancies and considering the fact
that the petitioner is only 43 years old, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for a
detailed medical examination once again.
20) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to send the petitioner for detailed medical examination
for ascertaining his fitness and suitability for any other alternate
post and take appropriate decision in the matter, without reference
to the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019. As the petitioner
is out of service since 2019, the respondents are directed to
- 12 - PK, J
WP_43642_2022
complete the entire exercise within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 11 - 04 - 2025
sur
