IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21641 of 2007 Between: M.V. Ramana Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, E-50673, APSRTC, Podili Depot, Podili, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Podili Depot, Podili, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the orders of the 3rd respondent in P1/469(1)/2002/PDL dt. 19-8- 2003 appointing petitioner 'Shramik' as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to appoint petitioner in a suitable alternative post even by creating a supernumeraray post protecting pay last drawn in the capacity driver along with increments and other allowances payable, by ordering payment of diﬀerence of salary right from 30-1-2002 the date from which he has been forced to go on leave by the Respondents, by directing payment of Salary to the Petitioner during the period of his forced leave from 30-1-2002 to 20-9-2003 and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.VIDYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. While he was working in Podili Depot, he was subjected to medical examination. On ﬁnding that his health condition is not ﬁt enough to enable him to discharge the duties of Driver, he was sought to be retired before he attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling writ petitions, one after the other claiming beneﬁts under the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Ultimately, he was appointed as a Shramik. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was extended the beneﬁt of alternative employment, his pay was not protected and that other benefits under the Act have not been extended. Heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was sought to be retired prematurely, on medical grounds, in the year 2002. In fact, he was asked to go on leave with eﬀect from 30.01.2002. The petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling writ petitions, and ultimately, he was appointed as Shramik, vide orders, dated 19.08.2003. However, his pay scale was not protected. Apart from directing that a person, who is found to be medically unﬁt, must be provided with an alternative employment by the employer, the Act mandates that pay of the employee must be protected. It is, no doubt, true that the respondents have ﬁxed the pay scale of the petitioner as that of a Driver, though he is functioning as a Shramik. The fact, however, remains that he was not extended the beneﬁt of increments, ever since he was asked to go on leave on 30.01.2002. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be appointed against any clerical post, and not Shramik. This, however, is a matter, which needs to be considered depending upon the vacancy position, and the ability of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that (a) the respondents shall protect the pay scale of the petitioner and extend the notional increments, for the period between the date on which he was asked to go on leave and the date on which reemployment was sanctioned to him. So far as the arrears are concerned, they shall be payable from the date on which the petitioner was appointed as Shramik, and, (b) the respondents shall consider the feasibility of posting the petitioner as Clerk depending on the vacancy position and the fulﬁllment of qualifications by him. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.08.2008 kdl