IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32955 of 2011 Between: Baditha Trilingam … Petitioner and APSRTC., Rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32955 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in extending the handicapped benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in the respondents Corporation on 01.08.2000 as Driver. While so, he was subjected to medical examination on 20.01.2006 wherein he was declared unfit to perform his duties as A-1 category driver due to defective in left eye vision. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner stated to have filed W.P. No.18650 of 2006 and in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, in the said writ petition, he was taken into service on 23.02.2007 as Shramik. His main grievance is that during his service, he was suffering with defective distant vision and acquired 40% blind disability and the same was confirmed by the Medical Certificate for the Blind issued by the District Medical Board and other authorities. As per certain proceedings and the circulars issued by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to certain benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent, Managing Director, issued notification dated 28.09.2007 conferring certain benefits to the physically handicapped persons with 40% of disability. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation, besides other representations, dated 31.10.2011 to the Regional Manager and the same is pending without passing any orders. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that the authorities may be directed to consider the representation dated 31.10.2011, stated to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 31.10.2011, stated to have been filed by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 30.12.2011 LSK