IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9578 of 2008 Between: M.Narayana S/o.M.Penchalaiah RTC Conductor R/o.D.No.8/61 Parakasash Nagar Kadapa Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C Corporation Rep.by its Managing Director,Hyd 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C,Kadapa Dist 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Rajampet Kadapa Dist .....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 a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus holding that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner with out passing any orders or without giving any notice is illegal and bad and against to the section of 47 of the Equal opportunities protection of rights and full Participation Act 1955 and it is bad illegal in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the act and consequently direct the respondents that the petitioner must be deemed to be service and he would be entitled to all service benefits including annual increments and promotions etc.till date of his retirement and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9578 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1993. While he was working in the Rajampet Depot, he was subjected to medical examination at the A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital, Tarnaka. Vide his letter, dated 04.09.2007, the Medical Officer certified that the petitioner is unfit to serve as Class A2 Conductor, on account of his ‘defective near and distant vision’ of both the eyes. Thereafter, the petitioner was kept out of duty and he is not being paid salary also. The petitioner made a representation, dated 29.09.2007, through an Advocate, with a prayer to provide alternative employment, duly expressing his financial difficulties. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Corporation found that the petitioner is unfit to render the services as Conductor, on account of his defective vision. The petitioner states that the cause for the same was an improper treatment given to him for an ailment by the Hospital of the Corporation. That, however, is a different matter. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) mandates that whenever an employee had suffered any disability while in service, the employer must explore the possibility of providing him an alternative employment, instead of removing from service. Such an exercise was not undertaken by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 29.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9578 of 2008 Date: 29.04.2008 JSU