Compensation does not bar Claim for Reinstatement

  • Kuldeep Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
  • Rajamani vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager

Kulde ep Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Filed under: Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Kuldeep Singh
Respondent: Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2002 VII AD (Delhi) 477
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Vijender Jain

Facts

Kuldeep Singh was rendered medically unfit and was retired prematurely on medical ground by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He was paid a sum of Rs. 33125/- as compensation under the Scheme that had been evolved by the Supreme Court to protect the workmen. As per the provisions of the Scheme, in case a worker is incapacitated to work only as a driver but is not rendered incapable of taking up another job then alternative employment must be provided to him.

In case no alternative job is available, he must be paid a compensatory amount in addition to his retirement benefits. In accordance with these provisions, Kuldeep was also paid a sum of Rs. 70,941.60 as compensation under the Workmen ’s Compensation Act, in lieu of alternative employment. Thereafter, he filed this petition for reinstatement under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Arguments made on behalf of DTC

DTC’s lawyer contended that the amount of compensation paid to Kuldeep was determined under the directives given by the Supreme Court in a previous case. It was further contended that the DTC was not obliged to reinstate him.

Arguments made on behalf of Kuldeep

Kuldeep’s lawyer argued that the amount of Rs. 33,125/- was paid towards medical charges and this amount as well as the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was paid prior to the Act came into force. She also relied on a previous judgment made by the Supreme Court and held that the DTC had to re-employ Kuldeep in light of this judgment.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that in light of the decision made by the Supreme Court in a previous case it was not open for DTC to contend that he was not entitled to reinstatement on the grounds that Kuldeep had been paid compensation under the Scheme and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Accordingly the Court directed the DTC to reinstate Kuldeep in a class IV post with protection of pay as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act. If no post were available then DTC would create a supernumerary post within eight weeks to accommodate Kuldeep Singh. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases referred:

  • Anand Bihari and Ors vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr; AIR 1991 SC 1003
  • Kunwar Pal Singh vs. DTC & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 1864/2000 arising out of SLP (c) 7997/99

Top

Rajamani vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager

Filed under: Section 72 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
226 Constitution of India
Appellant: Rajamani
Respondent: State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager
Citation: 2004 (102) FLR1213: (2004 IIILJ91Mad
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: P.D. Dinakarans

Facts

Rajamani was a conductor with the State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. He was invalidated from service on medical grounds and was appointed as Helper, as a fresh entrant in the Corporation.

He had suffered a disability due to an accident that had taken place during the course of his employment. Rajamani filed this petition in the High Court of Madras against the order of invalidation on the ground that he should have been appointed in some other post in the same pay scale and with the same service benefits.

Arguments made on behalf of Rajamani

It was argued on behalf of Rajamani that since he had acquired the disability during the course of his employment he was entitled to the benefits conferred upon him by the Persons with Disabilities Act.

He further asked the Court to direct the Corporation to reinstate him with continuity of service, safeguarding his back wages and protecting the pay and allowances earned by him.

Arguments made on behalf of State Transport Corporation

It was argued on behalf of the Corporation that Rajamani was entitled only to the order of reinstatement in any suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department, treating him as a fresh entrant.

Therefore, in view of his fresh appointment as a Helper, on compassionate grounds, there was no reason for him to have any grievance against the impugned proceedings.

It was also contended that having benefited under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Rajamani was not entitled to seek any further benefit with regard to the alleged disability.

Also, since the competent authority, viz. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, had found that Rajamani had suffered only 35% disability, he was not entitled to the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities Act, as he cannot be considered as a ‘person with disability’as defined under Section 47 of the Act.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the provisions under the Persons with Disabilities Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and concluded that the argument made on behalf of the corporation that Rajamani cannot be considered a ‘person with disability’ under Section 47 was invalid, as Rajamani was a person who had acquired disability.

The Court also stated that the provisions of the Act were in addition to and not in derogation of any other law, rules, order or any instructions issued there under. It was thus held that Rajamani was entitled to some other post in the same pay scale and service benefits.

Further, if it was not possible to adjust him in any post, a supernumerary post would have to be created for him.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 Constitution of India
  • Section 2(t) 2(p), 47 and 72 of the Persons with Disabilities Act

Cases Referred:

  • Narendra Kumar Chandla vs. State of Haryana, JT 1994(2) S.C. 94
  • Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, 2003 (2) Supreme 102

Top

Acts in Disability

  • The Mental Health Act
  • The RCI Act
  • The PWD Act
  • The National Trust Act
  • National policy for persons with disabilities

Useful Information

  • Government Services
  • Facilities & Benefits
  • Financial Assistance
  • Registration of Societies
  • RCI Bridge Course
  • Guidelines for Space Standards

Disability India Journal

  • 2006 Edition
  • April '04 Edition

National Level Institutes

  • NIMH
  • NIHH
  • NIOH
  • NIVH
  • IPH

Home | About Us