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.34117 of 2011 Between: T.Lal Ram … Petitioner and APSRTC., Rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.34117 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing alternative employment to the petitioner in terms of the “The Persons with Disablement (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right Full Participation) Act, 1995” (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to provide alternative employment to the petitioner in terms of the said Act duly granting all other consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the 1st respondents Corporation on 18.06.1998. While performing his duties on 27.01.2011, bus met with an accident and he sustained serious injuries, ultimately resulting in loss of vision in his left eye. Medical Board examined him and issued proceedings dated 01.07.2011 declaring him as medically unfit to perform his duties as Conductor. Thereafter, as he lost his vision on account of accident, while in service, he made representations on 17.09.2011, 26.09.2011 and 01.12.2011 to the respondents 2 and 3, Regional Manager and Depot Manager, respectively, requesting to provide him alternative employment. But the respondents did not consider the same and pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 47 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to alternative employment, as he was declared medically unfit to perform his duties as Conductor due to disability sustained by him during the course of his employment. To the effect that the employees, who were declared unfit, are entitled to alternative employment, the Corporation had issued circulars and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to alternative employment. Provisions contemplated under Section 47 of the Act are mandatory and binding on the respondents. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment in terms of the Section 47 of the Act. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation would submit that as it is specific contention of the petitioner that he made representations to the respondents authorities and the same are pending without passing any orders, therefore, they may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused the material on record. The only grievance of the petitioner is that as he was declared medically unfit to perform his duties as Conductor, he made several representations to the authorities to provide him alternative employment in terms of the Section 47 of the Act and the same are kept pending without passing any orders. The learned counsel on either side have fairly submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the representations stated to have been made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 17.09.2011, 26.09.2011 and 01.12.2011, stated to have been made by the petitioner, in terms of the Section 47 of the Act and the circulars issued by the respondents, from time to time 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