Andhra Pradesh HC- Disability acquired during employment makes employee entitled to continued alternate employment; Also entitled to backwages & arrears for interregnum period as Corportation failed to dischare its statutory duty

Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court, India

Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5486 of 2011

Case Title: Sri Ch.S. Rajeswara Rao Vs. Govt., of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary, Transports Department and others.

Date of Judgement: 14 September 2022

Judgements cited/reffered: 

(a) Bhagwan Dass and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2008(1) SCC (L&S) 242]

(b) K. Moses vs. A.P.S.R.T.C [W.P.No.3031 of 2008 decided on 01.11.2010]

(c) Laxmi Kant Sharma vs. State of U.P and 5 others.  [2018 LawSuit (All) 1355]

(d) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Managing Director and others vs. B.S. Reddy

(e) Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India (SC judgement 13 Feb 2003 in Appeal (civil) 1789 of 2000)

Brief

The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Corporation. He was appointed as a casual labour in April, 1984 and his services were regularized in the year 1987. While he was on duty, he met in an accident and undergone a surgery of spinal cord in which his two discs were removed. On the ground of medical unfitness he was retired from the service on 21.07.2001. 

Challenging the order dated 21.07.2001 the petitioner filed Case No.165 of 2005 before the State Commmissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Commissioner vide order dated 25.09.2006 allowed the said case, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2001 and directed the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s claim de-novo in the light of Section 47 of the Act, 1995. The petitioner was, therefore continued as conductor and his services were utilized at Bus Pass Station, Governorpet-I Depot vide orders dated 15.02.2007 and 21.02.2007. 

The present dispute is for payment of salary from 21.07.2001 upto 21.02.2007 during which period the petitioner remained out of service on account of his retirement imposed by the Corporation on the ground of medical unfitness. 

The petitioner submitted that in view of the statutory provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner ought to have been offered alternative employment to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The petitioner is entitled to receive the salary for the interregnum period.

The Bench highlighting the benevolent provisons of section 47 said, "Section 47(1) is clear in terms that "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The proviso to Section 47(1) in fact confers a right on an employee, who acquired disability and was declared unsuitable for the post he was holding, for being shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. By that proviso, not only the alternate employment but also the pay scale and the service benefits are also protected."

The bench further said, "so far as the payment of arrears of salary for the period in question is concerned, the petitioner was not at fault for not discharging the duties during the interregnum period for which the corporation was responsible as it failed to discharge its statutory duty. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary for the period claimed and cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the corporation. Under the Act, it was the statutory duty of the Corporation not to throw the petitioner out of service but to provide the alternative employment to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits and if there was no such post available the supernumerary posts should have been created.

Citing the case of State of U.P Vs. Dayand Chakravary and others [(2013) 7 SCC 595], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ shall not be applicable to such employee who is prevented by the employer from performing his duties as the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked.

Allowing the writ petition, the bench directed the respondent Corporation to pay full salary to the petitioner for the period w.e.f  21.01.2001 upto 21.02.2007 after calculating the same as per the pay scale applicable to the post of Conductor for the relevant period. It further directed that the arrears shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the respondent-Corporation along with simple interest thereon @ 6% p.a w.e.f 21.02.2007 upto the date of payment. If consequent upon the addition of the increments as aforesaid for the aforesaid period, some more arrears of salary become due to the petitioner for subsequent period also i.e after 21.02.2007, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner after adjusting the amount of salary paid to the petitioner, within the same period as aforesaid.

Read the judgement embedded below:

AP High Courts questions its own Registrar General on rejecting Blind lawyer for the post of Judge!

Dear Friends,

Another good news. This time from Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. A blind lawyer R Varahalaswami applied for posts of civil judge but faced rejection on the grounds of disability at the hands of Registrar General of AP High Court.

When challenged in the High Court, he gets a favourable order. The High Court even asked the petitioner to challenge the Recruitment Rules of the AP High Court! (Asked to challenge its own rules!!!!)

Another success after Tamilnadu! I am longing to see such a success in Delhi Judiciary Examination soon. Mind you, Delhi High Court has already amended its rules to accommodate the quota of Persons with Disabilities and reserved posts too some 3-4 years back. But till date no successful entry!!

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth

Here is the latest story from Times of India :

HYDERABAD: The AP High Court, on Thursday, accorded permission to a blind man for appearing for a screening test for the post of civil judge and also write the relevant written examination with the help of an assistant.

R Varahalaswami, a 28-year-old visually challenged advocate from Guntur applied for the post of a civil judge in June when the HC notified the posts for filling them up through a screening test and interview.

The judicial authorities rejected his application on June 16 saying that he has hundred per cent blindness and hence cannot be considered for this post. Swami approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his application. B Venkateswarlu, counsel for the petitioner arguing before a division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice Vilas V Afzulpurkar, contended that the proceedings of the Registrar General of the High Court were contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955.

He said that the Act provides for 3 per cent reservations for persons with disability in every establishment of which one per cent should be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision.

He maintained that the Registrar General in his notification issued for the recruitment of civil judges did not prescribe any disqualification to the 100 per cent visually challenged applicants.

The counsel told the court that the Madras High Court has appointed a totally blind person as a Munsif and he was also given posting as third additional district munsif at Coimbatore on June 1, this year.

The bench directed the Registrar General to allow the petitioner to attend to the screening test scheduled to be held on July 5 and provide an assistant to guide the petitioner during the test. It also told the petitioner to challenge the recruitment rules of the AP High Court in this regard.