Denial of alternate employment by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is called in question.

2. The petitioner, a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), met with an accident while returning home from duty on 03.01.2006. He was declared unfit to continue in the post of a Driver owing to the injuries and the disability which resulted from the accident. It is his case that he sought alternate employment in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1995'), as he had no other source of income and had to provide for his family including three school going daughters. He got issued legal notice dated 13.08.2007 to the APSRTC in this regard. While so, he received the APSRTC's letter dated 09.08.2007 on 29.08.2007 stating to the effect that his settlement amounts were ready for payment and calling upon him to attend the office and receive the same. He replied vide letter dated 31.08.2007 reiterating his request for alternate employment while disclaiming interest in receiving monetary benefits in lieu thereof.

3. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the APSRTC in this regard, he filed Writ Petition No.20058 of 2007 before this Court. By interim order dated 12.10.2007 passed therein, this Court directed the APSRTC to consider the petitioner's case as per Section 47 of the Act of 1995. Thereupon, the order dated 14.12.2007 was passed by the APSRTC. The APSRTC stated therein that the petitioner had willingly opted for retirement on medical grounds in the prescribed proforma in view of his health condition and that he was retired from service with effect from 27.10.2006 under proceedings dated 13.11.2006. In that view of the matter, the APSRTC decried the petitioner's eligibility for alternate employment under Section 47 of the Act of 1995. The petitioner was asked to approach the Depot Manager, Nizamabad Depot of the APSRTC for payment of additional monetary benefits.

4. In his response dated 13.01.2008, the petitioner again repeated that he was not interested in monetary benefits and was keen on being provided alternate employment. He disclaimed knowledge of the application dated 13.11.2006 said to have been submitted by him waiving his right to alternate employment in favour of additional monetary benefits. He specifically stated that the same was done keeping him in the dark and that he was never informed of the same. He again reiterated that he had no other source of income and had to provide for his family including three school going children.

5. Challenging the proceedings dated 13.11.2006 retiring him from service with effect from 27.10.2006 and the order dated 14.12.2007 rejecting his request for alternate employment, the petitioner filed the present case.

6. In its counter, the APSRTC stated that the petitioner's accident did not occur during the course of his employment but thereafter, he was found unfit to continue in service as a Driver. Reference was made to the APSRTC's Circular dated 26.08.2005 whereby a Driver could opt for retirement on medical grounds in view of ill-health. The APSRTC stated that the petitioner submitted his option in Annexure-A on 20.07.2006 seeking to retire on medical grounds and accepting the offer of additional monetary benefits. It contended that as the petitioner voluntarily submitted his option for retirement on medical grounds choosing payment of admissible additional monetary benefits, he could not seek alternate employment as per Section 47 of the Act of 1995. The APSRTC therefore sought to support its order dated 14.12.2007.

7. In his reply, the petitioner reaffirmed that he never submitted a letter seeking voluntary retirement and that he was not explained anything while obtaining his s