Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Maharashtra State Road vs // on 10 March, 2010 cites

Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003

In the light of the decision in Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. 2003 I CLR 786), it is clear that S.47 deals with an employee who has acquired disability during service and it is not necessary that he should have suffered 40% disability. The test is whether an employee, after acquiring disability, has become unsuitable for the post he was holding earlier, and it is provided by S. 47 that in such a case, the employee could be shifted to some other post with the same pay-scale and service benefits, and if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any such post, he may be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 344 - S V Patil - Full Document

G. Muthu vs The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... on 25 August, 2006

In a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in G. Muthu v. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. (represented by its Managing Director), Madurai (2007 (1) LLN 246), it was held that the term disability used in S. 47 of the Disabilities Act would encompass not only those contained in S.2(i), but also those which disabled a person from performing a work which he held immediately prior to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:50 ::: WP 2102/2005 9 Judgment acquisition of such disability. In that case, the appellant driver was discharged from service on the ground that he had acquired colour blindness which rendered him unfit to work as driver. Rejecting the argument that colour blindness would not fall under S.2(i) of the Act, the Division Bench held that the term disability used in S.47 of the Disabilities Act would encompass not only those contained in S.2(i), but also those which disabled a person from performing a work which he held immediately prior to acquisition of such disability. It was held that the benefits of benevolent legislation could not be denied on the ground of mere hyper technicalities. The S.L.P. filed against the said judgment of the Division Bench was also dismissed by the Supreme Court."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 46 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document
1