IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12407 of 2008 Between: S.Lakshmi Narayana S/o.Tathaiah Opp Shantinekatan Jr. College Main Road Sattenapalli Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep.by its V.C&M.D Bus Bhavan R.T.C X Roads Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Guntur District 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Sattenapalli Depot Guntur DIistrict 4 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Dipensary Guntur Rep.by its Medical Officer .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt.24-05-2008 passed by the Respondent No.2 on the instructions of the Respondent No.1 as illegal arbitrary against the principles of Natural justice and violative of Articles 14&21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1to 3 to re-appoint the petitioner into service as Record Tracer. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C.Prakash Reddy. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Record Tracer in Sattenapalli Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He sustained injuries in an accident on 20.10.2003. He has undergone treatment for a period of nine months in the Head Quarters Hospital of the Corporation, and thereafter resumed duty. Sometime later, the condition of the petitioner appears to have deteriorated and on that basis, he was subjected to medical examination once again. On the basis of the report in the medical examination, he was retired from service with effect from 28.04.2006. The petitioner has also availed the retirement benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he has undergone treatment with certain specialists and the disability from which he was suffering has ceased to exist. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents with a prayer to take him into service for the left over period. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Depot Manager and it was also observed that no Record Tracer is functioning in the Depot. Through his order, dated 24.05.2008, the Regional Manager, the second respondent herein, rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The injuries, which the petitioner received in the accident on 20.10.2003, were so serious that he had to undergo treatment as inpatient for a period of nine months in the Head Quarters Hospital of the Corporation. Soon after he was discharged, he resumed duties and functioned as Record Tracer. It was only when the post-operation pain was unbearable that the petitioner was unable to discharge duties and accordingly he was subjected to medical examination. The examination revealed that he was unfit to discharge duties. On his part, the petitioner also made a representation to the effect that he is not able to continue in service and obviously, to pave way for immediate release of benefits, he has stated that he does not intend to claim any alternative employment, etc. Ultimately, he came to be retired on medical grounds vide proceedings, dated 02.05.2006. It is no doubt true that the petitioner does not have any fundamental or legal right to insist, on being taken into service once again. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner cannot contract out his right, conferred under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). Added to that, the petitioner is said to have regained health. Basically, it was for the Corporation to have arranged for treatment when the disability in the second spell was noticed. Instead, he was sent home. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds without extending any benefits as provided under the Act cannot be countenanced, notwithstanding the alleged declaration that he did not pray for alternative employment, etc. Had it been a case where the post against which the petitioner was working has been filled up by another incumbent, there would have not been any scope for grant of any relief to the petitioner. The record discloses that the vacancy against which the petitioner was working is not filled up and, in fact, the Depot Manager expressed the view that the petitioner can be taken into service. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, in case the petitioner is subjected to medical examination once again and taken into service, in case he is fit. This, however, would be subject to the condition that he shall refund all the benefits extended to him at the time of retirement. Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that; (a) the petitioner shall be subjected to medical examination by the Corporation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (b) in case the petitioner is found medically fit, he shall be taken into service on condition that: (i) he refunds the entire amount that was extended as retirement benefits to him in pursuance of the proceedings, dated 02.05.2006; (ii) he shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit for the period between the date of retirement and the date of reinstatement, except for continuity of service at the time of future retirement. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}