GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petitions is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent issued in office order No. F2/469 (1)/98-Bswd, dt. 17-4-1998 by which the petitioner, who was Ex-driver of a. P. State Road Transport Corporation. Banswada Depot. Nizamabad District, was forced to retire from service on the ground of medical invalidation without providing alternate employment of salary from 3-7-1996 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of A. P. State Road Transport Corporation regulations.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner , he joined the service in APSRTC on 1-10-1983 and while he was working as driver in Banswada depot, 2-7-1996 he commenced his duty 1-30 p. m. and completed on the next day i. e. , 3-7-1996 at 11. 30a. m. On account of the Naxal bund, he was forced to stay at Banswada on 3-7-1996 and immediately thereafter, on information that his father was serious and admitted in hospital at Bodhan, he left Banswada by rtc Bus No. AEZ-4900. Due to his misfortune, the bus in which he was travelling, met with an accident, on account of which he was seriously injured and subsequently his right leg was amputated in the Osmania General Hospital. According to him, he was treated as inpatient in Osmania hospital till 15-2-1997. Subsequently, he was referred to Tarnaka hospital by APSRTC authorities. The Medical Officer of Taranaka hospital issued Medical Certificate dated 7-3-1997 opining that he is unfit for A-1 category driver due to amputation of his leg. Basing on the said certificate, the 1st respondent i. e. the Depot Manager, apsrtc by his proceedings dt. 10-3-1997 kept him under forced leave until further orders and subsequently the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 17-4-1998 retired him from service on medical ground with effect from 17-4-1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is not fit to hold the post of A-1 category (driver), the apsrtc authorities ought to have accommodated him in some other post in the depot by providing alternative employment, instead the respondents have chosen to retire him voluntarily, which is not only illegal and unjust but also it deprived him of his bread.

( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not on duty as he was completed him duty 11. 30 A. M. on 3-7-1996, whereas the accident took place at 9. 30 P. M. on 3-7-1996. Had the accident occurred during the course of service, the respondents are under obligation to provide him alternate employment. As per the medical Certificate, the petitioner is not fit to work as driver and the order retiring him voluntarily from service is not illegal.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both sides.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full participation) Act, 1995 (for short the Act ) according to him the word during his service used under Section 47 does not mean that at the relevant point of time when the accident occurred the employee shall be in service. It is sufficient if it is established that he is working with the organization and he is in service it automatically attracts sec. 47 of the Act.

( 6 ) ON the contrary, the learned standing counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the submissions stating that the word "during his service shall be interpreted in such a manner that the employee shall be in service at the time when the accident occurred and in such case only he is entitled for alternative employment but not in each and every case. The learned counsel further submits that may be it is a fact that he was working as a driver with the APSRTC but it does not mean that he is entitled for alternate accommodation, although a major accident occurred and the petitioner s leg was amputated.

( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is necessary to extract section 47 of the Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document