IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5412 of 2009 Between: Md.Babar S/o.Md. Khasim Contonment Depot, Secunderabad, R/o. Kumsanapally Village, Uppunuthala Mandal, Achampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Director, Administration, A.P.S.R.T.C. Office of the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, (SD) A.P.S.R.T.C. Rathifile, Secunderabad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Contonment Depot, Secunderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.K.VENKATESSHWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not providing alternative employment to the petitioner under Section 47 (1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was a driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). He caused fatal accident on 10-09-1999, while driving the bus of the Corporation. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 08-12-1999 and, after due enquiry, he was removed from service on 19-05-2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 11-09-2000. On the review filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2, while confirming the finding of guilt of the petitioner, however, taking a sympathetic view, ordered for his reinstatement, as fresh driver, subject to his passing medical test. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner, who was subjected to medical examination, was found suffering from colour blindness and therefore, he was not reinstated into service. Under Section 47(1) of the Act there is a prohibition on the establishment to dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. First proviso to the said Section envisages that if an employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. No reasons are assigned by the respondents for not considering the petitioner for a different post to which he is suitable under the above mentioned provision. In view of the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner would have ordinarily been entitled to reinstatement as driver. Since he incurred the disability of colour blindness, the respondents are bound to consider his case for an alternative employment with the same pay scale under the above mentioned statutory provision. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointing him in an alternative suitable post, in the light of the observations contained hereinabove, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the pay scale to which a fresh driver is entitled to draw from the Corporation. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th April, 2009 vrn