Azaz Pasha vs The Managing Director and The Divisional Controller, KSRTC

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 6.4.2013 and 15.5.2013 vide Annexures-G and H and to accommodate the petitioner in any suitable alternative post. The petitioner was appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor on 6.1.2001. He has suffered deformity and weakness. The petitioner has made representation dated 21.2.2013 requesting to accommodate him in light duty. The Medical Board has issued a certificate dated 5.3.2013 certifying that the petitioner is suffering from left leg post- infectious contracture with deformity and weakness and the disability is about 45%. Thereafter, the petitioner has made representations dated 6.4.2013 and 15.5.2013 as per annexures ''G'' and ''H''. The said representations have not been considered. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the representations of the petitioner dated 6.4.2013 and 15.5.2013 have not been considered and therefore, the second respondent may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is required to produce disability certificate in Form No. 4 and if the petitioner produces the disability certificate in form No. 4, the respondents will consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is relevant to note, the petitioner has been appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor on 6.1.2001. It is stated, the petitioner has suffered disability and the Medical Board has issued certificate certifying that the petitioner has suffered disability of 45%. The petitioner has requested the second respondent to give him light duty. The second respondent has not considered the representations of the petitioner. The second respondent being the concerned authority ought to have considered the representations of the petitioner, but has failed to do so. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexures-G and H.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 6.4.2013 and 15.5.2013 vide Annexures-G and H and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and keeping in view the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rules within three months.