WP/33564/2017 of AN RAO, E.G.DIST. Vs APSRTC.,VIJAYAWADA, A.P.,& 2 OTRS. on 23 August 2026

1. AN RAO, E.G.DIST.,

GOKAVARAM DEPOT, R/O. GOKAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST.

...PETITIONER AND

1. APSRTC VIJAYAWADA A P 2 OTRS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP.

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C EAST GODAVARI REGION, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G DISTRICT.

3. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C GOKAVARAM DEPOT EAST, GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds vide Proc No( P1/469(3)/17-GKRM, Dt 11-9-2017 and not providing suitable alternate job to the petitioner as per the provisions of the persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995, unjust and arbitrary, violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and as such direct the respondents to pay the arrears of -salary from 12-7-2017 to till reinstatement as Record Tracer. Shramik or Mike Announcer, with all consequential benefits by treating the period from the date of his unfit on medical grounds to the date of providing suitable alternate employment as 'on duty for all purposes forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 41761 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondents herein to provide suitable alternate job to the petitioner forthwith, Pending disposal of the W. P. Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.

2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent corporation in retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds vide Proc. No.P1/469(3)/17-GKRM, dated 11.09.2017 and not providing suitable alternate job to the petitioner as per the provisions of the persons with disabilities (equal opportunities protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 and consequently sought direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 12.07.2017 to till reinstatement as Record Tracer, Shramik or Mike Announcer with all consequential benefits by treating the period from the date of his unfit on medical grounds to the date of providing suitable alternate employment as ‘on duty’ for all purposes forthwith.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Chief Medical Officer of the respondent corporation addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent dated 29.08.2017 stating that the Medical Board examined the petitioner driver of Gokavaram depot and found that he is unfit for the post of Driver in A-1 category and also unfit for all other alternate categories as per the medical standards of APSRTC due to colour blindness. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned office order dated 11.09.2017 stating that the petitioner is unfit for the post of Driver in A-1 category and also unfit for all other alternate categories as per the medical standards of APSRTC due to colour blindness and as such he is retired from service with effect from 29.08.2017. But they have not examined about the scope of providing alternative employment to the petitioner. The petitioner has got still age for consideration for reinstatement in the alternative employment.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation submits that the Medical Board is the competent authority to review the medical fitness of the drivers and the Board after thorough examination only issues the fitness certificate. The petitioner is found unfit for A-1 category driver and also for all other alternate categories. In view of the recommendations of the Medical Board the petitioner’s case could not be considered for providing alternate employment.

5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his representation along with all the necessary documents in support of his claim for providing alternative employment in view of his health condition to the respondent authorities concerned within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such representation of the petitioner, the respondent corporation shall consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner giving due opportunity and upon verification of the records and referring the petitioner for medical examination afresh, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits without reference to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 11.09.2017 and the earlier medical examination report dated 29.08.2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months thereafter.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 01.08.2025 which shall also be placed before the authorities concerned along with the petitioner’s representation.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 24.08.2026 NNN