IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5769 of 2009 Between: K.V.N.M.V.Prasad S/o.Venkat Ramaiah Staff No.E-358685 R/o.Vijayawada, KRishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, APSRTC Bus Bhavan RTC X Roads, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC,Vijayawada Region 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Governorpeta II Depot .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue order or orders or direction declaring the action of Respondents in not alloting the desk job work to the petitioner as illegal a n d arbitrary,and consequentially direct the respondents to allot the petitioner to any desk job work forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5769 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is a Conductor in Governorpeta II Depot of APSRTC. He fell sick on 22-9-2008 due to cerebral hepatitis, which made him unfit to attend the regular duties of a Conductor. He claims that he is permanently disabled to discharge the duties of a Conductor and therefore, there is an obligation on the part of the respondent Corporation to provide him alternative employment under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. He submitted representation dated 16-1-2009 to the Managing Director, APSRTC-1st respondent and the Regional Manager, Vijayawada-2nd Respondent. There being no response to the representation, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri C,Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become permanently disabled to discharge the functions of a Conductor and there is an obligation on the part of the respondent Corporation to provide alternative employment under the provisions of Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dated 18-9-2002 in W.P.No.24326 of 2001 (Shaik Nawab Jani Vs. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad and another ). 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the representation of the petitioner is yet to be considered and that the respondents have not yet classified him as a permanently disabled one to discharge the duties of a Conductor. 6. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration with the Respondent Corporation, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation dated 16-1-2009 and pass appropriate orders keeping in view of the provisions of section 47 of Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995. 7. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 20th March, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5769 OF 2009 20th March, 2009.