Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing for U.P.S.R.T.C.
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be permanent driver in U.P.S.R.T.C. who has put his unblemished service of 22 years. THE petitioner vide his application dated 4.3.2000 informed the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. that he is having some impaired vision in his eye and requested for medical examination. On the basis of the information of the doctors petitioners further requested that he may be given some suitable job other than driver of the vehicle which is permissible under the rules of the Corporation. THE Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. issued a memo dated 15.3.2000 addressed to the fourth respondent, i.e., Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad that medical examination of the petitioner for determining his suitability for continuing him with his driving duties or to assign some other suitable work. Consequently, the Medical Board examined the petitioner and it was found that petitioner was suffering from impairment in his left eye and as such he was unfit for driving but was fit for other job. The report of the Medical Board was forwarded by the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Allahabad to the headquarters of the Corporation for approval and for providing the petitioner with an alternate job but the papers of the petitioner were returned by the headquarters directing that Medical Board may be required to specify as to whether the disability was temporary and curable or it was permanent and incurable. The Medical Board rectified it's information inter alia that the disability suffered by the petitioner in his left eye is permanent and incurable. The copy of the report was also forwarded to the headquarters. In the meantime, the petitioner alongwith other such disabled persons was given training for conversion of their post to that of conductor which was permissible under the rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner has not been given any alternate job even though he has undergone training which is permissible under the rules and a number of representation filed by him have remained unactioned. The petitioner has preferred indulgence for a direction to the respondent to convert the post of the petitioner to the conductor that of the conductors from any other alternate job as has been done by the respondents in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma whose case was also similar to that of the petitioner who had also undergone for the post of conductor.
(3.) THE respondents have raised an objection that the petitioner is a workman and as such has an equal, efficacious and alternative remedy by raising industrial dispute by appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance raised in the present writ petition. Apart from denying that petitioner has an unblemished service record the respondents in their counter-affidavit have averred that the petitioner does not have any legal right to work on a specific post and it is for the respondents to take suitable work from him. These are the only two main objections raised by the respondents-corporation.;