IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4897 of 2008 Between: M.Mallesham S/o.Late Ramulu APSRTC,HCU Bus Depot Hyderabad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad city Region JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, AP. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ranigunj-II Bus Depot Secunderabad, AP. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent sin rejecting to pay the benefits as per the latest circular who retired on medical grounds and also recovering the bills paid to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad in concern with the petitioner treatment is bad arbitrary, illegal, by setting aside letter No.P3/756(1)/2007-RNG-II, dated 24.10.2007 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to pay the latest circular (vide Notification No.PD-14/2003) dated 18.10.2003) benefits to the petitioner by treating him as retired driver on medical grounds (unfit) and not to recover the bills paid to NIMS from the petitioner settlement amounts. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Hyderabad Central University Depot, through orders, dated 03.11.2005. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he availed the remedy of review before the Regional Manager, Secunderabad, the first respondent herein. Through orders, dated 30.10.2006, the first respondent set aide the order of removal against the petitioner and directed his reinstatement, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty to the Depot Manager, Ranigunj-II, the second respondent herein, as per the directions of the superiors. He was referred to medical examination for certification of fitness. After obtaining fitness certificate, the petitioner reported to duty on 05.12.2006. He was not taken in duty on the ground that he did not produce the valid driving licence. On that date itself, the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident and was accorded treatment initially by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital, Tarnaka and, thereafter, by Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences. Though he was treated for the injuries, ultimately, it emerged that he is unfit to discharge the duties. The petitioner approached the second respondent on 12.03.2007. The petitioner was once again sent for medical examination and it was found that he is unfit to discharge the duties. The result is that the petitioner is not reinstated into service nor extended any benefits. He contends that he is entitled to be extended the benefit in terms of Regulation 6-A(5) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short ‘the Regulations’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner became entitled to be reinstated into service, on the basis of an order passed by the first respondent in a review. He reported to duty on 05.12.2006. However, he was not taken into service on the ground that he did not produce the valid driving licence. Even before the petitioner could produce the licence, he met with an accident on the same day. It resulted in permanent incapacity of the petitioner to function as a Driver. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not taking the petitioner into service. The Corporation itself evolved the scheme for providing benefits to the Drivers, who are rendered unfit. With the order passed by the first respondent directing reinstatement of the petitioner, he virtually stood re-inducted into service. There is no basis for denying the benefit under the Regulations to the petitioner. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation is proposing to recover the expenditure reimbursed by it for treatment of the injuries sustained by him, in the accident occurred on 05.12.2006. The Corporation got the petitioner treated in recognition of its obligation. Therefore, they cannot recover that amount. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: (a) the Corporation shall extend the benefits that are meant for Drivers declared unfit, as provided under Regulation 6-A(5) of the Regulations, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (b) the Corporation shall not be entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner that was incurred by it for the injuries sustained in an accident that took place on 05.12.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 13.03.2008 kdl : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}