IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30863 of 2011 Between: P.Vijendra Rao … Petitioner And APSRTC, represented by its MD and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30863 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 06.02.1998 in not treating the out of service period i.e. 10.03.1993 till the petitioner was taken on duty as Cleaner as duty period as with wages as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the intervening period from 10.03.1993 till he was taken as Cleaner in February, 1998 as duty with wages along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver in the respondents’ Corporation in the month of December, 1986 and his services were regularized from 01.08.1987. While so, he was made to retire from service on medical grounds on 10.03.1993 without providing alternative employment. Subsequently, after a lapse of more than five years, the 2nd respondent has issued order dated 06.02.1998, appointing him in the post of Cleaner treating the out of service period as not on duty and the same is in violation of Section 47 of the Act. Further, he joined duty on 06.02.1998 and on 31.03.2011 retired from service. The only grievance is that due to not treating the interregnum period i.e. 10.03.1993 to 06.02.1998 as on duty, he put to loss of salary and also continuity of service and attendant benefits for no fault on his part. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner was made to retire on 10.03.1993 on medical grounds and subsequently provided with an alternative employment on 06.02.1998. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.03.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 47 of the Act contemplates for provision of alternative employment in the event of persons happened to be declared disability during the course of employment. It is also submitted that the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 22.10.2011 to the respondents but no action has been taken thereon. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the respondents authorities, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.11.2011 LSK