MANMOHANDAS KARSHANDAS KHARVA Vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(GJH)-1988-10-17
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 13,1988

MANMOHANDAS KARSHANDAS KHARVA Appellant
VERSUS
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)In the instant case non-interference by Court means play safe and avoidance of possible disastrous consequences. On the other hand interference may help some individuals but it is fraught with danger leading to disastrous consequences for the unwary passengers of public vehicles and for other members of the public. Thus there are two alternatives between which the Court has to make its choice. Let us examine the facts and the question.
(2.)The petitioner was formerly employed as driver by a private operator. With the nationalisation of transport operation his services were transferred to respondent-Corporation i. e. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has issued a circular dated 20/04/1971 wherein it is provided that employees who were formerly serving with private operators and who have been absorbed by the respondent-Corporation will be continued in service upto the ago of 60 years. However the benefit of continuation in service upto the age of 60 years has not been extended to drivers. Hence the legality and validity of the circular is challenged on the ground that drivers have been treated with hostile discrimination inasmuch as though they ate similarly situated like other employees they have been deprived of the benefits of continuing in service upto the age of 60 years.
(3.)The contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted Complete physical fitness ever agile and alert mind with capacity to maintain sustained concentration are the pre-requisites of a driver operating a public passenger vehicle. If the appropriate executive authority in exercise of its administrative power which is normally backed by its experience and wisdom has decided that in case of drivers the superannuation age should be 58 years and not 60 years it would not be proper for this Court to sit in appeal over its judgment and substitute the opinion of the Court as regards the suitability of drivers being continued in service even after the age of 58 years. Bc it noted that the duties to be Perfomed by drivers though appear to be simple are very risky. Slackness even for a moment slightest slip and detraction even for a split second on the part of a driver of a public passenger vehicle is likely to be dangerous to lives of many ordinary people. All the aforesaid lapses are likely to develop with the advancement of age. Therefore if the executive authorities have in their wisdom taken the decision to retire drivers at the age of 58 years and not to continue them in service beyond that age by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the authorities have acted with hostile discrimination against the drivers.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.