Karnataka High Court
Mr M Anjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1335
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.22943/2017(S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
MR M ANJAPPA
S/O MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT MANIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR - 563 135 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAMANANDA A D, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE STATE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT, NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RESELDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT,
2
NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RESELDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KOLAR ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
KOLAR - 563 101
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
SRINIVASAPURA - 563 135
6. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MANDALAPANCHAYATH,
EARLIER THIMMASANDRA,
PRESENTLY ARIKUNTE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 135
7. THE PRESIDENT
ARIKUNTE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 135
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1- R3;
SRI.M.NARAYANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R4 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 FOR
IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION AND ORDERS TO THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A FOR
SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS AND FACILITIES TO THE
PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 61 [THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL
PARTICIPATION) ACT 1995] AND ETC.,.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying this Court to direct the respondents to reinstate him to the post which was held by him and also to provide monetary assistance as per Sections 61 and 66 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995.
2. The petitioner was working as a waterman on a monthly salary of Rs.1,300/- and later it was increased to Rs.1,700/- in the month of October 2015. The petitioner is physically handicapped having 45% disability on right leg which is certified by the authorized Government Doctor. He was discharging his duty since 1992. However, for medical reasons, he was hospitalized for treatment and for the said period he could not attend his work. Notices have been issued in this 4 regard and same have been answered by the petitioner. Despite the respondents removed the petitioner from service. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unable to attend his work only due to the fact that he was hospitalized for medical treatment. Although, he was suffering from medical problem, on the oral instruction of respondent No.6, his work was carried out by his wife. It is further submitted that since, he is physically handicapped person, he has to be protected under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 113 (4) of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act 1993 to approach the CEO Zilla Panchayath by filing an appeal. Though the Grama Panchayath had issued notices on three occasions, for which the petitioner replied, but not turned up to the panchayath to discharge his duties which ultimately, 5 caused lot of inconvenience to the villagers. Hence, the petition may be dismissed as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. Even though there is an alternative remedy available for the petitioner under Section 113 (4) of Grama Panchayath Act, the only reason that the petitioner is physically handicapped and taking into account the service of the petitioner for about 23 years and even the petitioner has given his explanation regarding his hospitalization and also produced relevant documents for having gone through treatment, the respondents failed to exercise power under the above Act. Therefore, this Court has decided to exercise its power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in order to safeguard the interest of weakers' section in the society.
In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-instate the 6 petitioner to service and respondents are directed to comply the orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN