IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18464 of 2006 Between: M. J. Haq, S/o. Late Gulam Ghouse, Arfath Colony, Banswada, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Banswada, Nizamabad 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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings No.L1/985(20)/06- RM-NZB dated 11.08.2006 of the 2nd respondent in refusing to provide suitable alternative employment as well as the 3rd respondent proceedings No.E1/693(6)/06/BNSD dated 09.05.2006 in making the petitioner to retire from service on the ground of Unﬁt due to defective vision as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of Art.14,16&21 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Sec.47 of The persons with Disabilites(Equal opportunities, protection of Right and full Participation)Act,1995 and consequently direct the respondents to provide the petitioner with suitable alternative employment with pay protection along with all consequential beneﬁts in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18464 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 11.8.2006 issued by second respondent in refusing to provide suitable alternative employment to the petitioner and the proceedings of the third respondent dated 9.5.2006 in making the petitioner to retire from service on the ground of unﬁt due to defective vision, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further to direct the respondents to provide the petitioner with suitable alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). There is no necessity of going into all the details. It appears, petitioner who was working as Driver in APSRTC was found medically unﬁt in view of defective eye vision, therefore he was made to retire from service on medical grounds without providing employment as required under Section 47 of the Act. Now it is represented that during the pendency of writ petition, the Regional Manager, Nizamabad through proceedings dated 23.4.2007 reinstated the petitioner as Shramik. Now the learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner was reinstated into service as Shramik with continuity of service and pay protection, but the period from the date of medically declaring him unﬁt till the date of reinstatement as Shramik was treated as ‘leave due’ and this approach made by the respondents is illegal. I am of the view that this aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. It is always open for the petitioner to ﬁle a separate writ petition and work out his remedies as available under law. I am of the view that since the petitioner was provided with alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Act, no cause survives in the writ petition for further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.10.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18464 of 2006 17.10.2008