THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6763 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who worked as Driver in APSRTC, seeks directions by way of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering his representation, dated 02.03.2010, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was working as a Driver and appointed as such in the year 1997. During his service, he fell sick and he was referred for medical check up. The hospital authorities of the respondent- Corporation have examined him and declared him unfit for the post of Driver, vide M.C.No.041506, dated 20.01.2006, due to hemiplegia. Thereafter, he was also referred to Medical Board, for re-medical examination, which examined him on 07.07.2006 and found that he is unfit for the post of Driver in A.1 Category as per the Medical Standards of APSRTC. At that point of time, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 24.07.2006, requesting the respondent-Corporation to retire him on medical grounds and settle his accounts. The request of the petitioner was considered in terms of Regulation 6A(4) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 and he was allowed to retire on medical grounds, vide order, dated 26.07.2006, passed by the third respondent in proceedings No.P2/693(8)/2006-TDP. Though the petitioner was retired from service pursuant to the order, dated 26.07.2006, nearly four years thereafter, he submitted the present representation, dated 02.03.2010, requesting the respondents to reinstate him into service by posting him in a suitable alternative post by extending the benefit of Section 47 of the Act. When such representation is not being considered by the respondents, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. In the order, dated 26.07.2006, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has submitted an application, dated 24.07.2006, requesting to retire him on medical grounds by settling his accounts. When the matter came up for hearing on 26.03.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation to produce the record, including the application of the petitioner, dated 24.07.2006. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the record, including the application of the petitioner, dated 24.07.2006, which clearly shows that the petitioner himself has requested the respondent-Corporation to retire him on medical grounds and settle his accounts on the ground that he is not maintaining good health. On the said representation, he was retired from service by an order, dated 26.07.2006. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel also submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 26.07.2006, all monetary benefits, including additional monetary benefits in lieu of alternate employment, were paid to the petitioner and the same were accepted by him. Though the petitioner claims reinstatement and to post him in a suitable post by giving benefit under Section 47 of the Act, it is not the case where the respondent-Corporation has dispensed with his services on the ground that he suffered disability during the course of employment. A reading of Section 47 of the Act makes it clear that no establishment shall dispense with the services of its employee on the ground that he suffered disability during the course of employment. In the instant case, the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2006 is based on the application submitted by the petitioner himself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same is in violation of Section 47 of the Act. In any event, the petitioner having accepted all retiral benefits, including the additional monetary benefits about four years back, without even questioning the order of retirement, he cannot simply make a representation for reinstatement by seeking benefit of Section 47 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement as requested in his representation, dated 02.03.2010, and further, the order, dated 26.07.2006, allowing the petitioner to retire, is not in violation of Section 47 of the Act. Though petitioner has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 25.01.2010, in W.P.No.15438 of 2009, as the petitioner himself has made an application for retirement on medical grounds, and as he was already paid all the retiral benefits, including the additional monetary benefits, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to this case. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. ____________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J. Date:08.06.2010 VGB