AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for preliminary hearing is taken up for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner''s ease is that he has been certified by a competent Medical Board as being disabled to the extent of 60% and therefore he ought to be given alternative employment, other than as a driver. This had been complied with by the respondents earlier. However, the petitioner thereafter having been asked to resume his normal duties in the expectation that he would have recovered from his disability, it is stated, that the petitioner has procured yet another certificate from the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, to again declare that he suffers from a disability of 60% and therefore, claims to be provided alternative employment. That having been denied, the petitioner had approached the Commissioner for Disabilities, who in turn, has ordered to provide alternative employment. That not having been complied with, the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned Counsel for the respondents, who has entered appearance, would submit that insofar as the certification that was provided in the first instance is concerned it was accepted and the petitioner had been provided with alternative employment. The petitioner''s condition was expected to improve over time and therefore, was directed to resume his regular duties, as a driver. The petitioner had not approached the respondents to contend that he continued to suffer from any disability. The petitioner on his own has-secured a certificate at Annexure ''J'' and seeks to contend that he ought to be treated as disabled and be provided alternative employment. It is contended that the procedure on the other braid is, if the respondents are convinced of the petitioner''s disability, they would yet require him to undergo a further examination by a competent Medical Board and it is thereafter, that a decision would be taken. The respondents are not bound to consider the certificate produced by the petitioner, of his own accord.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, would assert that he had made repeated representations and it is only thereafter he has produced the certificate at Annexure ''J'' to claim a continued disability.
Having regard to the above circumstances, it is a fit case where the petitioner, if he is indeed disabled, to make a representation to the respondents. The respondents on receipt of a such a fresh representation, are directed to refer the petitioner to a competent Medical Board and to ascertain his disability and thereafter to take an appropriate decision as to providing any alternative employment, if warranted.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.