IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23385 OF 2009 Between: V.Ramulu ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23385 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in not providing stationary duty to the petitioner as recommended by the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘NIMS’) as arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on 17.05.2009, while discharging the duties as Conductor, he sustained injuries to his right hand and he was referred to NIMS by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tarnaka Hospital on 18.05.2009. It is further pleaded that he underwent treatment in NIMS from 19.05.2009 to 17.08.2009. As per the medical certificate issued by NIMS dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner suffered disability to the extent of 60% and it was recommended that he may be given suitable stationary works. It is stated that though the petitioner made a representation dated 24.10.2009, requesting the Corporation to provide alternative suitable job, the respondents failed to consider his request. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation the plea of the petitioner that an accident took place on 17.05.2009 while the petitioner was on duty has been specifically denied. It is further stated that the petitioner was sick and he was under treatment from 18.05.2009 to 25.10.2009 and thereafter, the medical officer of the respondent Corporation having examined him, gave a fit certificate to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner was fit to discharge the duties from 26.10.2009. Though the petitioner acknowledged the said fit certificate dated 26.10.2009, he failed to report to the duty and on the other hand, filed the present writ petition making a claim for alternative stationary works. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is apparent from the rival contentions raised by the parties that there is a serious dispute with regard to the fitness of the petitioner to discharge the duties of a Conductor. Whereas the petitioner basing on the medical certificate dated 17.08.2009 issued by NIMS claims that he sustained disability to the extent of 60% and he is unable to discharge the duties of the Conductor, it is the specific case of the respondents that as per the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the Corporation, he is fit to discharge the duties of a Conductor. Having regard to the controversy, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for reference to the Medical Board for its opinion as to the fitness of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to constitute a Medical Board and refer the petitioner’s case for its opinion. Such exercise shall be made following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 18.01.2010 Ivd