Court judgements: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Sk. Moulana v. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
2004(1) Andhra Pradesh Law Times 520
Writ Petition No. 24082/1998
Decided on: 04-11-2003
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Gopala Krishna Tamada, J
Fact: Sk. Moulana was a driver of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Banswada depot. He met with an accident while he was travelling in a bus to Bodhan for his personal purpose. His right leg was amputed and he was referred to Tarnaka hospital by APSRTC. The hospital authorities issued a medical certificate that he is unfit for A-1 category driver due to imputation of leg. Based on this medical report the APSRTC authorities forced him to voluntarily retire from service without providing him alternate employment. He challenged the order of the respondents as a violation of section 47 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (section 47). Section 47 makes a provision for alternative employment in the event of an employee acquiring disability during the course of service. But the accident occurred while the petitioner was off duty and therefore not entitled to alternative employment.
Held: Section 47 of the Act deals with “non-discrimination in Government employment, i.e., that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank of an employee who acquires disability during service. Provided that employee after acquiring his disability not suitable for the post he was holding or none of the available post, he shall be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation. The words “during his service” shall not be taken in a narrow compass that at a particular point of time the employee shall be in actual service when he met with an accident. It is suffice that the employee is on the rolls of the organization when he met with an accident at a relevant point of time. The petitioner is entitled to the provisions of the Act. So the court directed the respondents to enact the section 47 of the Act in petitioner’s case.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And Others v. M.V.Ramana Rao
(2003) 5 Andhra Law Times 463 (D.B)
Writ Appeal No. 1366/2003
Decided on: 11.08.2003
Andhra High Court
Judge: Per Devinder Gupta, C,J.
Fact: M.V Ramana Rao, driver of APSRTC developed defective hearing and ‘Tinnitus’. The petitioner was placed under forced leave. He applied for an alternative job. The Corporation certified him as unfit for the ‘A-1’ category and offered him the job of a cleaner. He appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the learned single judge directed the Corporation to provide him alternative job with equal status and same pay scale by considering Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (section 47). This appeal has been filed by the Corporation challenging this order by pointing out the disability has not occurred at the time of service.
Held: It is for the Medical Board to certify whether a person is unfit for a job and whether the employee suffered disability during the course of his employment or beyond the course of his employment. In the absence of a disability certificate stating any thing contrary, the disability of the current nature is presumed to have taken place during his service only. The very salient principle which must be followed in this case would be that when at the time of initial entry into service an employee who is found to be fit enough to enter into job and suffers any disability during the course of employment, it is for the Medical Board to certify that nature of job being performed by the employee was not such which could have led to such disability or impairment. The court directed to provide suitable employment to the respondent protecting his pay scale and other service benefits.
Rasala Gopal v. Andhra Bank General Manager & Others
(2003) 3 Andhra Law Times 760
Writ Petition No.6974/2003
Decided on: 22.04.2003
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: L.Narasimha Reddy, J
Fact: Rasala Gopal challenged the (sec2 (b)) Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles section 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner was born with only one functional eye and his vision of the other eye is totally impaired. The persons born with one functional eye is certified as suffering from 30 per cent disability. But cannot be treated as a disabled person according to (Sec2) the Act. The Act does not take into account of the persons with only one functional eye or persons with disability of 30 per cent.
Held: One of the type of disabilities mentioned in the PWD Act is ‘blindness’ (sec2 (b)). It is clearly defined as ‘blindness’ refers to a condition where a person suffers from any one of the following conditions:-
1. total absence of the sight
2. visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or20/200(snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses or
3. limitation of the filed of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse
Since the petitioner does not fall into any of the categories, he is not entitled to claim for the benefit of reservation for the physically handicapped persons. The definitions of the Act are based on scientific study and physical data collection. While extending some benefits the Parliament is always within its competence to stipulate necessary parameters. If every time the deficiency as to be functioning of sense organs to be treated as a physical disability, a situation would arise wherein the exception would eat away the rule. Hence it was directed that the petitioner shall be treated in par with any other candidate and he shall not be discriminated on account of the visual disability he suffers.
Md. Sukur Miya & Another v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Others
(2003) 3 Andhra Law Times 765
Decided on: 28.01.2003
Andhra High Court
Judge: S.Ananda Reddy, J
Fact: The petitioners were working as coal fillers, met with an accident and suffered severe injury. Petitioners were engaged in underground mining and medical fitness is absolute necessary. The medical board of the company conducted necessary tests and verifications and declared both of the petitioners as unfit to carry out the job. The respondent company terminated their service accordingly. The petitioners complained that termination of services is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Held: The medical officers of the respondent company declared the petitioners as unfit for job and disabled. This is not legally valuable, since the disability of the worker must be accessed by the medical authorities notified by state government under provisions of the Act. The argument of the respondent that other benefits under various settlement had taken place between respondent and Employees Union were carried out to the petitioners does not entitle the respondent to block the provisions of (sec 47) PWD Act. So the court directed the respondent to se aside the order of termination of service of petitioners, provide alternative employment in conformity with the provisions of the PWD Act with in six months of this order.
Peerambaduru Murali Krishna & Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Education Dept. & Others
(2003) 1 Andhra Law Times 127 (D.B)
W.P. No. 3997 & 4041/2002
Decided on 20.12.2002
Judge: B.Sundershan Reddy, J
Fact: The petitioners applied to the notification of secondary Grade Teachers of Andhra Government. The petitioners who are visually handicapped persons claimed that the Government order (dated 18.11.2000) of service rules framed by state government of Andhra Pradesh is a void since the three per cent reservation allotted to disabled persons were not further categorised as 1:1:1 for visually handicapped, hearing impaired and orthopaedically handicapped respectively as provided under Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Held: The state government order (dated 18.11.2000) further amended the Andhra Pradesh state government rules (rule22(2)), providing 1:1:1 reservations for visually handicapped, hearing impaired and orthopaedically handicapped. There exist no conflicts with central PWD Act. If selections were made according to these provisions only one petitioner would have been selected as Secondary Grade Teacher. Since he is deprived of his legitimate right, the respondents were directed to create a supernumerary post and accordingly appoint him as Secondary Grade Teacher.
C.V.L. Narasimha Rao Vs. Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Dept. and Ors.
W.P. No. 11542 of 2001
Decided On: 21.09.2001
Judges: Satya Brata Sinha, C.J. and V.V.S. Rao, J.
This petition is based on a hostel for the blind which is overcrowded, dangerous, and in a pitiable condition. Even after the respondent had been notified of this, they did nothing, and so this petition was filed.
G.Mallikarjuna Rao v. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore & Anr.
(2003) 1 Andhra Law Times 127 (D.B)
W.P. No. 9222/1999
Decided on 13.04.2001
Andhra High Court
Fact: This petition is filed for an appointment on compassionate basis after the death of petitioner’s father who was working in ministerial services of judiciary. The petitioner was minor at the time of father’s death and attained majority after eight years. But the respondents rejected petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has also sought justice for the action of the respondents in denying reservation who is also a physically handicapped person in the vacancies notified vide notification dated 4-10-1996. The petitioner requested to declare the actions of respondents as discriminatory (In terms of Rule 22 (ii) of the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India) and consider him to any suitable post in the A.P Judicial Ministerial Services such as Typist, Junior Assistant, Copyist, Record Assistant etc on the basis of provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Held: The dependants of the deceased employee who are minor at the time of death of the employee can seek appointment on compassionate ground only if such dependants attain majority within a period of two years from the date of the death. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the majority after a long time of more than eight years. Since the petitioner does not acquire a right to be considered for appointment under compassionate grounds under the existing Rules, non-consideration of his case by the respondents cannot be faulted. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief because in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 4.10.1996 was found to be defective and the same was rejected at the time of scrutiny of the application by the District Selection Committee. In that view of the matter at this distance of time, it is not possible to issue any direction to consider the application of the petitioner for the post.
Syed Sha Musebulla Alvi v. Secretary, G.A.D., Secretariat, Hyderabad
(1999) 2 Andhra Law Times 130
Writ Petition No.23323/1998
Decided on: 29.12.1998
Andhra High Court
Judge: - S.R. Nayak, J
Fact: Syed Sha Musebulla Alvi was working as a conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While in service, he lost his vision in both eyes and became disabled to perform his duties as a conductor. He sought alternative employment within the Corporation. Since there was no response from the management, the petitioner on earlier occasion, filed writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of holding the petitioner is entitled to pursue review remedy provided under the Regulations and there afterwards the reviewing authority under the regulations considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected his claim. So he filed this present petition to consider his case on behalf of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Held: The present PWD Act, 1995 also applies to this Corporation. The term ‘Establishment’ defined in the act as among other entities, a Corporation established by or under a Central or provincial or state act (clause (K) sec 2). It clearly states no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank of an employee acquiring disability during service. If he not suitable to the present post, he shall be shifted to any other post with same pay scale and other benefits. If it is not possible, he shall be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available (sec 47). So the court ordered the Corporation to take decision according to the provisions of PWD Act.
M. Srinivas Vs. Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board and Ors.
WP No. 15664 of 1997
Decided On: 25.09.1998
Judge: B.S. Raikote, J.
The petitioner, who is blind in one eye, was refused for the position of Assistant Public Prosecutor due to the fact that only orthopaedically handicapped persons, not visually handicapped persons, were given reservations.