S. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a driver of al -Category in the first respondent- Corporation, whose services are dispensed with on medical grounds, has filed this Writ Petition for Writ of mandamus, to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to give him any alternate suitable post, seeking assistance under the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for disposal of the Writ petition are as under: The writ petitioner was appointed as driver in A1-Category and posted to Podili Depot of Prakasam District. It is his case that during the tenure of his employment, he suffered disease called tinnatus , which resulted in hearing impairment. As such, he is unfit to work as driver and the same is certified to that effect by the very authority of the State road Transport Corporation. As such, he made a representation requesting for providing of any desk job, which is equivalent to Al-Category driver. When the petitioner was not provided with alternative and suitable job and when he was forced to go on leave, earlier he filed Writ petition No. 18143 of 2002. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by judgment dated december 2, 2002 directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, in accordance with the directions issued in the said judgment by this Court, he made representation, on which, now, the second respondent-Regional Manager, Ongole has issued proceedings dated January 17, 2003 stating that the drivers who were found unfit for the post of Driver are to be considered to the post of shramik under 10% quota as per Circular no. 112/87, dated October 24, 1987. Further it is stated that in view of the financial restraints of the Corporation, even recruitment to the post of shramik have been deferred and referring to the same, the petitioner was informed that it is not possible to provide suitable alternative job to him.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Law officer on behalf of the respondent- corporation, it is clearly admitted that when the petitioner made representation for alternative employment, he was referred to their Hospital at Tarnaka and the senior medical Officer, APSRTC has certified that the petitioner is unfit to discharge the duties of driver due to defective hearing and in view of the disease Tinnitus developed in him. Further it is stated that in view of the certification of the Doctor, the petitioner was placed under forced leave with effect from january 30, 2002. With regard to the benefits claimed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal opportunities Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the said Act is not applicable to the Corporation and the disease Tinnitus is not a disability within the meaning of the said Act to extend the benefits under the said Act.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri Dhonday Ram Mane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Posani venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the pleadings and contentions referred to above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as driver in A. 1-Category in the respondent-Corporation and according to the certification made by the senior Medical officer of the respondent-Corporation, he is suffering from hearing impairment and the disease called Tinnitus. It is also certified that the petitioner is unfit to discharge the duties of driver. With regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995, it is already held by this Court that the Act referred to above is applicable to the employees of the State Road transport Corporation and the same is also evident from the provisions of the said Act that the Act is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document