Scope of Government Organizations under Purview of the PWD Act

MV Ramana Rao vs. APSRTC

Filed under: Section 2(l) and 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellant: M.V.Ramana Rao
Respondent: APSRTC and Ors
Citation: MANU/AP/0301/2003. Decided on 10.04.2003
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge: R.Subhash Reddy

Facts

MV Ramana Rao was a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation posted in the Podili Depot of Prakasan District. While he was in service, he had 'tinnitus' which lead to hearing impairment.

As a result, he was declared to be unfit to work as a driver by the State Road Transport Corporation. He asked to be given a desk job, which was equivalent to A1 category driver but his request was declined and he was forced to go on leave by the Corporation. He had, earlier, filed a Writ Petition in 2002 asking to be assigned to another job.

The Court had dismissed it by asking the APSRTC to consider the claim. In response to this, the Regional Manager stated that the drivers found unfit for the post of a driver are to be considered for the post of 'Sharamik' under 10% quota. But due to the financial restraints of the Corporation the recruitment to the post of 'Sharamik' was not possible.

Response of the APSRTC

In the reply filed by the Corporation's lawyer they stated that Ramana was forced to leave in accordance with the advice of the doctor. He was not given benefits under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act as the Act was not applicable to the Corporation and the disorder 'tinnitus' was not a disability according to the Act.

Observation of the Court

The court stated that the Persons with Disabilities Act were applicable to the employees of the State Road Transport Corporation and so the Corporation's plea was unfounded. The Court also rejected the plea that hearing impairment caused by the disorder 'Tinnitus' is not a disability.

The Court said that the Act was framed to provide full protection and ensure equal participation of the people with disabilities and the very action of the Corporation in forcing Ramana to go on a leave without providing suitable alternate employment was in violation of the Act.

It also stated that just because the disability had not happened suddenly it could not be said that it was not during the period of employment. Hearing impairment is not a disability that happens overnight and Ramana had worked in the Corporation for over 10 years.

The Court said that according to the Act if a person acquired a disability during the period of service and was no longer suitable for the post held by him then he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

In case this was not found to be possible immediately, it was obligatory for the employer to create a supernumerary post until a suitable post could be made available. The Court decided that the Corporation was obliged to provide suitable employment and the Corporation's actions in forcing Ramana to leave were illegal.

Held: The petition was allowed with no costs.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 2(l) and 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995