IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.28683 of 2008 Between: K.M.A.Basha. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Road & Buildings Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1. Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari for R.2 and R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in confining extension of monetary benefits under amended Regulation No.6A (5)(b) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short “the Regulations”) to the medically unfit Light Vehicle Drivers (for short “L.V. Drivers”) with effect from 15-7-2008 only, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was a L.V. Driver of respondent No.2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). He was declared medically unfit to continue as L.V. Driver in Class-A1 category by the Medical Board on 4-4-2006 due to defective vision. Re-medical examination of the petitioner by the Superintendent and Chief Medical Officer, Tarnaka Hospital, Hyderabad, reconfirmed the said earlier opinion and following the same the petitioner applied for permitting him to retire from service on medical invalidation. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued order dated 19-8-2006 retiring the petitioner from service. Under the Corporation’s Regulations, if an employee is retired on medical grounds, he is entitled to all terminal benefits, including additional monetary benefits like notional PF/Gratuity and wages on leftover service as stipulated. As some of these benefits were not made available to medically unfit drivers, the Corporation, vide its Resolution No.128/2003 dated 28- 7-2003 amended Regulation 6A (5) by providing for better benefits to them. The said amendment was notified, vide: Notification No.PD-14/2003, dated 8-10- 2003 to be implemented with effect from 8-10- 2003, pending sanction of the State Government. When the said notification was kept in abeyance, some of the aggrieved drivers approached this Court and eventually the State Government, vide: its letter dated 24-6-2005, accorded approval for Regulation 6A (5) of the Regulations with effect from 8-10-2003. Following the same, the Corporation issued Circular No.PD-40/2005, dated 26-8-2005 for implementation of the said amendment. When the benefits provided to the drivers in the above mentioned amended Regulation were not made available to the L.V. Drivers, they approached the Corporation for extension of the same benefits to them as well. Initially, the said request was turned down, vide: Notification No.PD-05/2006, dated 29-6-2006. The National Mazdoor Union of the Corporation made a further representation to the Corporation, which passed its resolution and forwarded the same to the State Government for its approval. The State Government having considered the said request permitted the Corporation to implement its Resolution No.154/2007, dated 28-12-2007 to extend the additional monetary benefits notified under Regulation 6A (5)(b) of the Regulations to the medically unfit L.V. Drivers also, vide: letter bearing No.1800/Tr.II(2)/2008-1, dated 15-7-2008 of the Principal Secretary to Government. Following the said approval, the Corporation issued Circular No.PD- 41/2008, dated 9-9-2008, wherein it has directed all the unit officers to implement the amended regulation to the medically unfit L.V. Drivers also with effect from 15-7- 2008 dully following the procedure as applicable to the drivers. When the petitioner approached the Corporation to extend the said benefit, it declined his request on the ground that the above-mentioned Circular provides for payment of additional monetary benefits only to those who retire on or after 15-7-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Law Officer of the Corporation, rejection of the petitioner’s request is sought to be justified, inter alia, on the ground that the nature of duties of Heavy Vehicle Drivers is entirely different from those of the Light Vehicle Drivers; that the drivers dealing with heavy vehicles will be put to more stress and be more cautious as they have to deal with the lives of several persons travelling in the said vehicles; and that there is no parity in the service conditions of these two categories of drivers. In my considered view, the attempt of the respondents to draw a distinction between the two categories of drivers in the context of payment of additional monetary benefits, in accordance with the amended Regulations, has no legs to stand in law. Indeed, if any such distinction exists, there is no reason whatsoever for the Corporation to make a recommendation to the Government to extend the same benefit, which is being given to the H.V. Drivers retiring on medical grounds, to the medically unfit Light Vehicle Drivers also. The short question that requires to be considered is whether the Corporation is justified in placing an artificial cut-off date, i.e., 15-7-2008, for the purpose of extending the additional monetary benefits or not. The facts narrated above reveal that the L.V. Drivers were eventually treated on par with Heavy Vehicle Drivers with the approval by the State Government of the proposal of the Corporation to extend the monetary benefits to them also. While approving such payment, the State Government clearly stated “to implement the Resolution No.154/2007 dated 28-12-2007 to extend the additional monetary benefits notified under Regulation 6A (5)(b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulation, 1964, to the medically unfit L.V. Drivers also”. This being the admitted position, when the Government directed the said resolution to be made applicable to the medically unfit L.V. Drivers also, it necessarily follows that all those L.V. Drivers, who retired with effect from 8-10-2003 are also entitled to payment of additional monetary benefits on par with the Heavy Vehicle Drivers. Therefore, I see no justification in the Corporation to deny these additional monetary benefits payable in terms of the amended Regulation to all those L.V. drivers, who retired prior to 15-7-2008. Such a denial constitutes invidious discrimination among the L.V. Drivers, who retired between 8-10-2003 and 14-7-2008 and those who retired thereafter. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the amended Regulation 6A (5)(b) of the Regulations to the petitioner and pay the additional monetary benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:20-4-2009 MNR