Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1317/2021 of shiek Bhaji Vs State represented by Principal Secretary on 31 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1317/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SHIEK BHAJI, S/o. SHEIK SALTAR, Aged 43 YEARS, OCC: EX DRIVER, APSRTC, GUNTUR DEPOT STAFF, R/o. D.No.81 24/2692,NALLA CHERUVU, 25
APHC010017962021
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY, T
THE HONOURABLE S
WRI
BETWEEN:
1. SHIEK BHAJI, S/o.
DRIVER, APSRTC
24/2692,NALLA CH
1. STATE
REPRES
TRANSPORT DE
ANDHRA PRADES
2. THE
MANAGING
ANDHRA PRADES
3. THE
DEPOT
M
APSRTC, ANDHRA
Petition under Artic
the circumstances stated
may be pleased to issu
particularly one in the n
retirement
order
pas
P1/469(01)/2018-GNT-I
07.12.2020 in respect of
his personal visit to resp
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR
IT PETITION No. 1317/2021
. SHEIK SALTAR, Aged 43 YEARS, OC
C, GUNTUR DEPOT STAFF, R/o. D
HERUVU, 25 LINE, GUNTUR-522003, A
...PETIT
AND
SENTED
BY
PRINCIPAL
SECR
PARMENT ,SECRETARIAT, VELAG
SH.
G
DIRECTOR,
APSRTC,
VIJAYAW
SH.
ANAGER,
APSRTC,GUNTUR
D
A PRADESH.
...RESPOND
le 226 of the Constitution of India prayin d in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig ue an appropriate Writ Order or directi nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set a ssed by the 1st respondent vid Dt 05-03-2018 received by the petiti Staff No. E 729125, Driver of Guntur-I D
pondents office with a direction to reins
R RAO
CC: EX-
D.No.81-
A.P.
TIONER
ETARY,
GAPUDI,
WAADA,
DEPOT,
ENT(S):
ng that in
gh Court
on more
aside the
de
No.
ioner dt.
Depot on
state into
suitable services and by declaring the non-action of the respondents upon the representations made by the petitioner dated 15.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against to the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SARALA NEELAGIRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.P VENKATA RAO SC For APSRTC
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the retirement order passed by the 1st respondent vide No. P1/469(01)/2018- GNT-I Dt 05-03-2018 received by the petitioner dt. 07.12.2020 in respect of Staff No. E 729125, Driver of Guntur-I Depot on his personal visit to respondents office with a direction to reinstate into suitable services and by declaring the non-action of the respondents upon the representations made by the petitioner dated 15.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and against to the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders….”
2. Due to medically invalid, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide proceedings dated 05.03.2018. The said order dated 05.03.2018, was challenged before this Court on the ground that no prior notice was issued before terminating the services of the petitioner and it amounts to violation of principals of natural justice. If at all, the petitioner is found medically invalid, the respondents should have been directed for a review to the medical board, which reassess the case of the petitioner and shall upon a fresh medical examination determine whether the petitioner meets the medical parameters. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2018.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.1) Department, dated 26.12.2025, according to the said G.O., the case of the petitioner will be considered, if the petitioner does not fall under disabilities specified under The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as RPwD Act, 2016. If the petitioner falls under any of the 21 categories, the petitioner will be paid additional compensation. If the petitioner files a representation before the respondents, the authorities consider the same and pass appropriate orders. And represented before this Court to direct the petitioner to file an application before the authorities and the same will be considered in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.1) Department, dated 26.12.2025 and also placed reliance on the common order of this Court in W.P. No.2937 of 2023 and batch. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.12.2025 has directed the petitioners therein to exercise their option in terms of G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.1) Department, dated 26.12.2025, consequently directed the respondents to examine the same and pass appropriate orders.
4. Upon perusal of the impugned order and reviewing the impugned order, the respondents have not stated about the petitioner’s medical invalidation. According to the medical report, the petitioner is suffering from Epilepsy. Persons with such disability generally have weakness in their legs and arms, which rarely curable disease. Therefore, no purpose would be served by referring the Medical Board for review and at the same time epilepsy is compatible with work.
5. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner herein to file an application before the authorities, basing upon the G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.1) Department, dated 26.12.2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon filing such application, the respondents are directed to examine, if the petitioner does not fall under any of the specified disabilities in the schedule appended to the RPwD Act, 2016, the petitioner’s case for the alternative employment may consider. Needless to say, the entire process shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of application. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.09.2026 Harin
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 1317 of 2021
Date: 01-09-2026
Harin