Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to direct the respondents to provide any other alternate job petitioner and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment in the Corporation and also pay him his salary for the period from the date he met with the accident till he resume his duties along with compensation.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that respondents issued an advertisement for selection for appointment on the post of Driver in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "Corporation") vide Annexure -1. The eligibility for appointment on the post of Class -VIII is license of heavy vehicle and experience of three years. As per condition No. 3 of the advertisement, respondents initially prepared a panel of candidates and provided that those selected in the panel would be paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 210/ - per month in the first year and on satisfactory working, they shall be given Rs. 150/ - as incentive and further in the third year on satisfactory working, the incentive amount would be Rs. 200/ - per month. If upon completion of three years satisfactory service by any of such candidates, he would be liable to be regularized in service with regular pay scale. Petitioner was selected and accordingly was appointed as Driver vide order of the respondents dt. 13.08.2001 but he joined on 31.08.2001. He was granted appointment for a period of two months and it was extended from time to time. Petitioner while driving the bus of the RSRTC met with an accident on 27.07.2003 at 11.15 p.m. He had to remain hospitalised for number of days and due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability and all four fingers in his right hand got imputed. The medical board vide its opinion dt. 25.09.2004 assessed the extent of disability of the petitioner at 45%. When petitioner reported on duty, respondents declined to accept him on duty on the premise that he was now no longer capable of driving the vehicle. Petitioner submitted representation to the respondents and also served notice for demand of justice in which he requested that he should be provided an alternate job but to no avail. Shri Bipin Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner having been appointed on the basis of panel, despite his appointment in various orders issued by the respondents from time to time being described as contractual, would be entitled to regularisation upon completion of satisfactory service of three years. Learned Counsel has submitted that all those who were empaneled along with the petitioner pursuant to the selection made in 2000 -01, were regularized in service and were granted regular selection. Petitioner has placed on record copy of the panel in which name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sr. No. 152 in which, Karan Singh at Sr. No. 509, Lakhan Singh at Sr. No. 472 and Nahar Singh at Sr. No. 568, respectively were regularized in revised order of the respondents dt. 30.03.2005, which is also on record. He relied on the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1985 and argued that according to the aforesaid provision, no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. However, liberty is given to the employer that if such an employee is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. It has been provided that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. In order to buttress his argument, learned Counsel relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Anr. : 2003(2) Supreme 102 : (2003)4 SCC 524, Bhagwan Dass and Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board : (2008) 1 SCC 579 and recently delivered judgment passed by this Court in Ram Kishan Verma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. SBCWP No. 9878/2002 decided on 12.02.2009.
(3.) MS . Shruti Dixit, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that appointment of the petitioner was merely contractual and that petitioner was rendered completely unfit for being retained in service on the basis of such contractual appointment. He was therefore not granted the extension and his name was struck off from the panel. It was argued that regularization of empaneled incumbent on the post of Driver was subject to the condition of his satisfactory service. Since petitioner was responsible for the accident while driving the vehicle of the Corporation, his services cannot be said to be satisfactory. Even otherwise, so long he was not regularized, he could not claim benefit of Section 47(1) supra. It was argued that judgments relied on by the petitioner are all distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the controversy involved in the present matter. Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner has already availed of remedy before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where substantial amount has been awarded to him as compensation. Apart from the aforesaid remedy, petitioner has also approached the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.;