AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner is a Conductor in the respondent � Corporation and he has been working from the year 1981
onwards. He had put in 26 (twenty-six) years of service. While he was on duty on 04.06.2007 in route No. D70, plying from Ambattur to
Velacherry, he suffered severe heart pain and immediately he was taken to the Appasami Hospital at Velacherry. Thereafter, he took treatment as
in-patient at Deepam Hospital, Tambaram. Later, the respondents referred him to Vijaya Hospital, where he underwent by-pass surgery and there
he was treated as in-patient from 12.06.2007 to 26.06.2007. The respondents paid him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) for the
by-pass surgery under the Health Scheme. After taking complete rest for three months, he joined duty on 20.09.2007. The petitioner was given
light duty from the date of his re-joining i.e. From 20.09.2007, based on the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor, who performed the by-pass
surgery. However, the respondents denied light duty from 11.11.2007 without any rhyme or reasons and the petitioner was asked to perform the
duties of a Conductor. He was unable to attend duties as he was not given the light duty, which was given till 11.11.2007.
In these circumstances, the Joint Managing Director of the respondent � Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 01.01.2008 alleging
that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 06.12.2007. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.01.2008 to the Joint Managing
Director bringing to the notice of the above said facts and also requesting the respondents � Corporation to give him light duty and also refer him
to the Medical Board to ascertain his fitness.
In the said situation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a direction to the respondents to refer him to the Medical Board
to ascertain his fitness to perform the duties of a Conductor and to give him light duty, if the Medical Board opines that he could not do the work
of a Conductor.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995, in this regard.
The learned Counsel for the respondent � Corporation states that they have no objection for referring the petitioner to the Medical Board to
ascertain his fitness to perform the duties of a Conductor. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that they require three
weeks time for the said purpose.
In the said circumstances, it is suffice to direct the second respondent to refer the petitioner to the Medical Board within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to ascertain the fitness of the petitioner to perform the duties of a Conductor and if the Medical
Board opines that the petitioner is unfit to perform the duties of a Conductor, the second respondent is directed to provide him alternative
employment with pay protection, continuity of service and with all other benefits as provided u/s 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The second respondent is directed to carry out the aforesaid exercise within a
period of four months. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.