IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14839 of 2007 DATED: 26.7.2007 Between: N.Babu Rao petitioner And The APSRTC Rep by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & ors Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14839 of 2007 ORAL ORDER : The petitioner is working as Driver with the respondents- APSRTC. While discharging his duties as driver, the petitioner met with an accident and he was subjected to medical examination. In the medical examination, he was declared unfit to Driver post vide certificate dated 28.2.2006. Based on the medical report, the third respondent issued proceedings dated 1.3.2007 retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds. Thereafter, on 3.4.2007, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to provide alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1 of 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 4.4.2007 to the third respondent to provide alternative employment. Since no action is taken on the said representation and the respondents are not permitting him to attend the duties, he filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 47 of the Act, the respondents are under an obligation to provide alternative employment and placed reliance on judgment of this Court in N.Siva Kumar Vs. APSRTC, Musheerabad and others[1]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC. This Court in N.Siva Kumar’s case considered similar issue and directed the authorities to consider the case of the employee in the light of the provisions of the Act for alternative employment. The relevant portion reads as under; “Having regard to the fact that a right has been conferred upon the appellant herein under a statute, although the question raised herein has not been raised before the learned single Judge, we, in modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge, direct the appellant herein to file a representation, if not already filed, before the appropriate authority seeking the relief prayed for in this appeal, and on receipt of such a representation, the appropriate authority may consider the case of the appellant in the light of the aforementioned provisions and the decisions referred to hereinbefore, and pass an appropriate order at an early date, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of communication of this order.” In the present case, the representation dated 3.4.2007 made by the petitioner, seeking alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1 of 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), is said to be pending consideration before respondent No.1. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.4.2007 and pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law particularly in the light of Section 47 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATED: 26.7.2007 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14839 of 2007 DATED: 26.7.2007 [1] 2001 (3) ALD 166 (DB)