9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Regulations 17(2) and 17(3) of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1981 regarding medical tests and retrenchment of drivers.
Summary: The Supreme Court granted Special Leave to hear appeals against the Allahabad High Court's decision regarding the scope of Regulations 17(2) and 17(3 of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1981. The case involved drivers who were discharged due to medical unfitness as per the Corporation's regulations. Regulation 17(2) mandates drivers to undergo medical tests, including vision tests, at specified intervals. Regulation 17(3) empowers the Corporation to terminate the service of drivers who fail the fitness test, with the discretion to offer an alternative job to the retrenched driver. The Court clarified that the discretion to offer an alternative job is not a vested right for the retrenched workers but must be considered by the Corporation on a case-by-case basis. The High Court's directive for the Corporation to offer alternative jobs was deemed fallacious as the discretion under Regulation 17(3) does not create a legal obligation to provide alternative employment. The Court emphasized that the Corporation's discretion must be exercised within the constraints of public service efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of discretionary decision-making under Regulation 17(3) is to rehabilitate disabled drivers, requiring a reasonable, rational, and fair exercise of discretion by the Corporation. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, overturning the High Court's judgment, and directing the Corporation to reconsider the cases of the respondents in light of the Court's observations. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
|
