Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.@mdashHeard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Saran for the respondent-U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner claims himself to have been disabled on account of an injury during the course of his employment. He
prayed for an alternative job and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner he was offered an alternative engagement as per office order
dated 20.4.2012.
2. Learned counsel submits that this engagement is a temporary arrangement without any permanent order being passed for taking work on an
alternative job to be offered to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 76 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other
than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981.
3. Sri Saran submits that final orders are yet to be passed in terms of the aforesaid regulation, and in case the same has already been passed, the
same shall be communicated to the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has been coming across a large number of petitions claiming alternative employment
after incurring disability during employment. Regulation 76 is quoted herein under for ready reference:
76. Adjustment of a disabled member.--If an employee has been certified by the Chief Medical Officer of the district or a medical authority
prescribed by the corporation to have been incapacitated or disabled from discharging of his normal duty due to any physical injury caused to him
during the course of his employment, the appointing authority may give him some other suitable job for which he is eligible:
Provided that if an employee receives compensation in accordance with law applicable to him, the provision of this regulation shall not apply.
5. According to the aforesaid regulation, the employees are insisting for offering alternative employment keeping in view their disability.
6. As an illustration, if a driver has been seriously and severely injured making him physically unfit to drive a vehicle then he seeks an alternative
employment. The same is the situation with employees who are visually impaired. There are many such employees who are making such claims and
the matters are coming up before this Court in several writ petitions. It is, therefore, clear that in order to avail the said benefit cases are being
agitated by respective employees without there being any firm policy undertaken by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for adjusting the
employees against such posts that might be available for the purpose of Regulation 76.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds it necessary that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation takes a policy decision in terms of
Regulation 76 for identifying such posts that may be available, or otherwise, for the purpose of accommodating such claimants. The appointing
authorities, therefore, should be equipped with such guidelines which they will have to follow for the purpose of implementing any claim under
Regulation 76.
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a final order
in relation to his claim as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. A copy of this order shall be dispatched by the
learned counsel for the Corporation to the Chairman for the purpose of considering the framing of a uniform policy in order to be implemented in
all regions by the respective appointing authorities keeping in view the provisions of Regulation 76 so that the flow of litigation before this Court is
reduced as the authorities would be in a better position to take a decision on the basis of the guidelines so framed. The same should be done within
a period of three months.