Karnataka High Court
Manjappa S vs The Managing Director on 4 January, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.24404 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
MANJAPPA S.,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT YARAVANAGATHI HALLI,
KOLKOUNTE POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 005 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Sri.Thippeswamy, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Basavaraju, for petitioner has appeared in person.
2. The facts are simply stated as under.
It is stated that the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Driver by the respondent -Corporation on 05.02.2005 and he was brought on probation and was confirmed. He was deputed to work at Depot No. 2 of second respondent - Corporation.
It is further stated that the petitioner has put in more than 16 years of continuous service with the respondent's Corporation.
It is averred that on 10.07.2020, when the petitioner was discharging his duty in vehicle bearing No.KA 17 F2023 the said vehicle met with an accident near Balenahalli gate, as a result of the said accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries. He was unconscious 3 and was admitted to Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru, wherein he was an inpatient and underwent for disk prolaphs operation.
As things stood thus, the petitioner was not completely recovered from the injury suffered in the accident, he continued his treatment at different hospitals and as a result of the same, the petitioner became a person of disability and suffering from permanent disability. It is said that the doctors who treated the petitioner have advised the petitioner to do light work and issued a disability certificate to him certifying that the petitioner is suffering from the disability and the same was assessed at 45% and the said disability is not likely to improve and the same is permanent disability and petitioner was recommended to do light work.
After obtaining the disability certificate, the petitioner made a representation on 09.11.2020 to the first respondent requesting them to accommodate light work as 4 per the opinion given by the Medical Board and the same was forwarded to the second respondent for its consideration. On the recommendation of the first respondent, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee for verification of disability and in the said Committee it was decided that the petitioner would be accommodated light work for a period of 6 months for which an office order was issued on 15.12.2020.
It is also stated that after the completion of 6 months period, on the basis of recommendation of the first respondent and also the decision of the Committee, the second respondent has again issued one more Office order on 24.07.2021 under which he has been accommodated light work only for a period of 6 months temporary.
Under these circumstances, left with no other alternate or efficacious remedy, petitioner has invoked the 5 writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Srii.Thippeswamy, learned counsel submits that the Office order dated 24.07.2021 at Annexure-G is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law.
Next, he submitted that petitioner is suffering from 'L5-S1 EXTRUDED RECURRENT DISK WITH CENTRAL CANAL STENOSIS'. The petitioner is not in a position to discharge his duty as a Driver and the Doctors who treated him have recommended him to do light work.
A further submission was made that the petitioner has also produced all the relevant records before the respondents to consider his case for alternative suitable post permanently by considering his disability and he was subjected to the medical examination and that after medical examination, the Medical Board has issued a disability certificate to the petitioner by assessing his disability at 45%.
6
Learned counsel strenuously urged that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Counsel has also drawn the attention to Section 47 of the Act.
Counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged about 51 years and he is willing to discharge the light work in the Corporation in the event if the petitioner is not continued in the light work, he will be put to great financial hardship besides mental agony.
It is contended that the second respondent ought to have accommodated light work to the petitioner permanently and ought to have been acted on the opinion given by the Medical Board. Hence, the office order is illegal.
It is further submitted that the second respondent without following the circular/guidelines issued by the first 7 respondent has decided to accommodate light work only for a period of 6 months. The petitioner is discharging his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors. But there is a threat by the second respondent with dire consequences to stop the light work provided to him at any point of time.
Lastly, counsel submitted that viewed from any angle the office order is unsustainable in law. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief. Accordingly, he prayed that the office order dated 24.07.2021 at Annexure-G is liable to be quashed.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner and perused the annexures with care.
The short point which requires consideration is whether exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted?
The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the office order dated 24.07.2021 at Annexure - G. 8 It is the case of the petitioner that he met with an accident on 10.07.2020 while he was driving the vehicle bearing number KA 17 F2023. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and he is suffering from disability. The disability assessed at 45%. Hence, the petitioner was assigned light work on the recommendation of the first respondent.
It is pivotal to note that the second respondent has assigned light work to the petitioner and accordingly, issued an office order on 24.07.2021. The office order is at Annexure-G. I have perused the same with utmost care. As could be seen from the office order, the second respondent has issued an office order directing the petitioner to do the light work for a period of 6 months with effect from 24.07.2021.The period of 6 months will end on 24.01.2022. However, the petitioner has initiated action against the respondents before the completion of the period. There is no cause of action to initiate action. I 9 have no hesitation in saying that the writ petition is premature.
While addressing argument, learned counsel Sri. Thippeswamy strenuously urged that there is threat by the second respondent with dire consequences to stop the light work provided to him at any point of time.
I have considered the said contention urged on behalf of petitioner. I am unable to accept the said contention. The petitioner has initiated action against the petitioner and has approached this Court "because he fears". The petitioner apprehends that the second respondent may take coercive steps and stop him from doing the light work. It is needless to say that there must be an immediate threat to do something.
The facts and circumstances and the state of affairs does not warrant the exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I find no reason to exercise the original and supervisory power. 10
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing stage.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN/VMB