IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 14681 of 2009 Between: Mohd.Khaja Miya, S/o Mohd.Hameed Miya, 44 years, R/o 8-2-4/1, Ambedkar Nagar, Old Tandur, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tandur Depot and another. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRI PETITION No.14681 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the APSRTC on 01.04.1992 and his date of retirement is on 10.10.2022. While so, the respondent management issued proceedings dated 16.05.2006 directing him to undergo medical examination on the ground that he had a defective vision. Accordingly, the petitioner underwent medical examination under protest and basing upon the medical report, he was forced to retire from service on the ground that he was medically unfit vide proceedings dated 16.05.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner himself underwent eye test at Sarojini Eye hospital on 01.05.2009 and that the doctor certified that the eye sight of the petitioner is quite normal. It is stated that the respondent corporation deliberately sent the petitioner out of service on the pretext of medical unfitness. It is further stated that the respondent corporation even failed to consider his case for alternative employment as a Shramik. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner was found medically unfit for A-1 category post during the periodical medical examination and hence he was retired from service on medical grounds by the 1st respondent vide office order dated 05.05.2006. It is contended that the petitioner after taking retirement under medical grounds has also claimed for the enhanced benefits eligible under the medical retirement for drivers in lieu of alternative employment and accordingly he was granted additional monetary benefits. It is further contended that since the petitioner has availed additional monetary benefits in lieu of alternative employment, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Heard both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents for providing alternative employment as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, if the respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for alternative employment, they are at liberty to recover the amount that has been paid by the Corporation to the petitioner in accordance with rules. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19-02-2010 Gsn.