Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Heard P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents.

3. Brief facts:

Petitioner was appointed as Shramik on 01.03.2011 in respondent Corporation, promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade-II w.e.f. 25.01.2014. Petitioner submitted a representation along with a certificate for grant of Physically Handicapped (PH) allowance for permanent disability. Petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Officer, Tarnaka Hospital, on examination, petitioner was declared unfit for the post of Mechanic in M2 category due to "Muscular Dystrophy Bilateral Shoulder (Pectoral Girdle)" vide M.C.No.099661 dated 28.09.2016 (Ex.P3).

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner, was employed in the respondent Corporation as Shramik, was promoted to the post of Mechanic Gr.II w.e.f. 25.01.2014. It is further submitted that on a representation made for grant of PH allowance, he was directed to appear for medical examination and was found unfit for the post of Mechanic in M2 category due to "Muscular Dystrophy Bilateral Shoulder (Pectoral Girdle)" vide M.C.No.099661, dated 28.09.2016. It is also submitted that on an appeal to Medical Board, petitioner was found unfit for the post of Mechanic in M2 category. It is submitted that on a representation for alternative employment, he was given the post of Shramik w.e.f. 03.03.2017, after medical examination. It is pointed out that petitioner was found unfit for the post of Mechanic only, for Muscular Dystrophy as per Section 2(i) of Act, 1995. It is urged that Section 47 of the Act, 1995 entitles the petitioner for pay scale of Mechanic. It is lastly submitted that Muscular Dystrophy is a form of locomotor disability and that locomotor disability includes shoulder dislocation disabling the person.

5.3 It is lastly submitted that petitioner is not entitled for protection of pay scale under Section 47 read with Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995. It is further submitted that Muscular Dystrophy is not an enumerated disability under Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

7. Petitioner was appointed as Shramik on 01.03.2011 and was promoted as Mechanic on 25.01.2014. Medical officer vide certificate No.099661, dated 28.09.2016, stated that petitioner was unfit for services in M2 category (Mechanic), as he was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy Shoulder (Pectoral Girdle) with 77 ½ % disability. On appeal, to Medical Board, Medical Board on 31.10.2016 held that petitioner was unfit for the post of Mechanic in M2 category due to muscular dystrophy and endorsed the same on the certificate dated 28.09.2016 (Ex.P3).

17. Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995 speaks of what a disability is. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the case of petitioner falls under locomotor disability is farfetched. Certificate issued by Medical Board on 28.09.2016 is that petitioner is diagnosed with "Muscular Dystrophy Bilateral Shoulder (Pectoral Girdle)". It is further the case of learned counsel for petitioner that Muscular Dystrophy Bilateral Shoulder (Pectoral Girdle) is one of the enumerated disabilities under Section 2(i) of Act, 1995 and falls under the category of locomotor disability. This Court is of the considered opinion that the contention cannot be accepted. In the Medical certificate issued by Medical Board, it is categorically stated that petitioner is found unfit for M2 category due to muscular dystrophy. This Court cannot extrapolate and interpolate the phrase "Muscular Dystrophy".