Phoola Singh vs Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was a driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tanakpur, District Champawat. He met with an accident in the year 2007 and consequently suffered fracture in his right leg and thereafter became disabled as far as his abilities to drive a state carriage/bus was concerned.

As per Regulation 76 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service, Regulations, 1981 (from hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1981"), in such a contingency an employee has to present himself before a Medical Board and in case the Medical Board gives an opinion that he is not fit for the duties which he was discharging earlier, he is liable to be given some other suitable job for which he is eligible. Regulation 76 of Regulations 1981 reads as under:

Adjustment of a Disabled Member. - If an employee has been certified by the Chief Medical Officer of the district or a medical authority prescribed by the Corporation to have been incapacitated or disabled from discharging of his normal duty due to any physical injury caused to him during the course of his employment, the appointing authority may give him some other suitable job for which he is eligible:

Provided that if an employee receives compensation in accordance with law applicable to him the provision of this regulation shall not apply.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that after he met with accident in the year 2007, he was examined by a Regional Medical Board, which gave its report that he is not fit any further to drive a bus. The matter was thereafter recommended to the authorities by the General Manager (Personnel), Headquarter Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, 117-Indira Nagar, Dehradun. In such a given contingency where the concerned authority of the Corporation itself is satisfied (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) that the Petitioner has been examined by the Medical Board and is not fit for driving, it was only natural that the Corporation should have assigned the Petitioner some duties other than that of a driver, which he could have performed, considering his medical condition. This has clearly not been done. Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post for the last more than three years, but in vain.

In the counter affidavit, the fact that the Petitioner has met with an accident has been admitted in para 4 of the counter affidavit. On this, learned senior counsel for the Respondent corporation has stated that he need not make any comments on this assertion. The only reason assigned by the Respondents for not assigning any duties to the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has not been examined by a medical board. This is clearly wrong inasmuch as the Petitioner has already been examined by a medical board, which is certified by the letter of the General Manager (Personnel), Headquarter Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, 117-Indira Nagar, Dehradun dated 7.12.2007 (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition).

Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate who has now appeared in the matter fairly admitted that the Petitioner was indeed examined by a Medical Board as contemplated under the Regulations, and as alleged by the Petitioner.

On these set of facts, the General Manager (Personnel), Head Office, Dehradun i.e. Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to immediately assign some other duties to the Petitioner other than that of a driver. Needless to say that since the Petitioner has not been assigned duties so far for no fault of the Petitioner, it is made clear that the continuity in the service of the Petitioner shall also be maintained.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, has stated that he has not received any salary for this period. Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation, however, contends that this has not been pleaded in the writ petition. The objection seems to be correct. In case the Petitioner has not been given salary for the period during which he was not assigned any duties, he shall make a proper representation before the authorities for the same, which shall be considered and only thereafter if the grievance remains, the Petitioner is at liberty to move this Court.

With these observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.