Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Syed Sha Musebulla Alvi vs Secretary, General Administrative ... on 29 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD632, 1999(2)ALT130
ORDER
1. Rule nisi, Smt. Nanda, learned Standing Counsel, took nolice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition was heard finally.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor on 19-1-1985. While serving as such, he became disabled, in the sense, he lost vision of both the eyes and became disabled to perform the duties and functions attached to the post of Conductor. Therefore, the petitioner sought alternative employment in the establishment of the Corporation. Since there was no positive response from the management, the petitioner on earlier occasion, filed WP No.24095 of 1996 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11-9-1997 holding that the petitioner is entitled to pursue review remedy provided under the Regulations, and there-afterwards, the reviewing authority under the Regulations viz., Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected his claim by the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1998. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the proceedings of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director dated 18-4-1998. The contention of the petitioner is that his case was not considered by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'). The above Act is a Central enactment, and it was brought into force w.e.f. 7-2-1996. The Act apparently applies to the establishment of the respondent-Corporation also. Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'Establishment' to mean, among other entities, a Corporation established by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation is an establishment within the meaning of the term 'Establishment' defined under Section 2(K) of the Act. If the Act is applicable to the Corporation, Section 47 should be applied to the instant case also. Section 47 reads as follows:
"Non-discrimination in Government employment:--(1) No. establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits;
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section."
3. The Court perused the impugned order of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director has not at all adverted to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act.
4. On the above short ground, I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1998. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner de novo, in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, and communicate his decision to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.