IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16343 of 1999 Between: R. Raja Reddy S/o Anthi Reddy, APSRTC., Bodhan Depot, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad District. 2 Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C., Bodhan Depot, Nizamabad 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 or direction , especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (1) declaring the Impugned Order No. 03/469/(1)/98 -BDN dated 22/7/1999 issued by the Second Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same; (2) Consequently, direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on any other suitable alternative job with effect from 27/7/1998 duly granting all other consequential benefit; (iii) pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16343of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Driver (Class – A1) in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the orders dated 22.07.1999, passed by the 2nd respondent, by which, he was compulsorily retired from the services of the Corporation with effect from 03.07.1999 on medical grounds. He also questions the office order dated 27.07.1998, by which, he was declared unfit to work as a Driver (Class–A1). 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the respondent- Corporation in the year 1987. But however, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and subsequently, he was removed from service by an order dated 6th January 1992. The petitioner has questioned the said order before the Labour Court – II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.51 of 1995. The Labour Court, through an Award dated 01.03.1997, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits like continuity of service, but without back- wages. In compliance of the said Award, the petitioner was reinstated into service. But however, by the impugned order dated 27.07.1998, the petitioner was asked to proceed on leave for a period of one year, holding that he was unfit to work as a Driver (Class – A1), on medical grounds, and by further order dated 22.07.1999, he was compulsorily retired from the services of the Corporation. 3. The petitioner has questioned the impugned orders dated 27.07.1998 and 22.07.1999, mainly on the ground that as per the service regulations of the Corporation, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to provide alternate employment in case it is found that the employees are unfit to work in a particular post, but they cannot compulsorily retire the employees from service, without showing the alternate employment. 4. Though the writ petition is of the year 1999, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. But however, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 04.08.1999, the petitioner was appointed as a Shramik (Cleaner) under the 10% quota available for the Medically Unfit Drivers, and was posted at Kamareddy Depot of Nizamabad District. 5. If any employee of the State Road Transport Corporation suffers disability during the course of his employment, he is not only protected by the Regulations of the Corporation relied upon by the petitioner, but also by the provisions contained in The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act No.1 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As per the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Act, no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service, provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. 6. In view of the above said welfare Legislation, simply on the ground that the petitioner-employee has acquired some disability during the course of his employment, he cannot be retired from service. Hence, the impugned orders dated 27.07.1998 and 22.07.1999 are contrary to the Act. 7. Inasmuch as the counter affidavit is not filed, and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was already appointed as a Shramik (Cleaner) under the 10% quota of Medically Unfit Drivers, the impugned orders dated 27.07.1998 and 22.07.1999 are set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a Shramik, till the age of his superannuation, by extending all the benefits of service applicable to the post of Driver (Class–A1). 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th August 2008 ka/ajr To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad District. 2 The Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C., Bodhan Depot, Nizamabad District.