Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ.

This appeal is directed against the order and judgment rendered by our learned brother Justice Sanjay Kumar who allowed the writ petition instituted by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent-petitioner was employed as a driver with the first respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. He met with an accident on 03.01.2006 while returning home from duty, rendering him unfit to continue in service as a driver because of the disability sustained in that accident. When he got served legal notice on 13.08.2007, the A.P.S.R.T.C responded by calling upon him to receive his terminal benefits. On 31.08.2007, the writ petitioner, has instead reiterated his claim for alternative employment. At that stage, he instituted W.P.No.2058 of 2007. By an interlocutory order passed therein on 12.10.2007, a learned single Judge directed the A.P.S.R.T.C to consider his case for alternative employment in accordance with the provision contained under Section 47 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, henceforth referred to as Disabilities Protection Act. In response to that order, the A.P.S.R.T.C conveyed the decision through the proceedings dated 14.12.2007 of the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nizamabad, that since the writ petitioner has submitted his option in the prescribed format expressing willingness for retirement on medical grounds and opted for payment of additional monetary benefit, in lieu of alternative employment, the writ petitioner was accordingly retired from service and hence is not eligible for alternative employment under the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. That gave rise to the institution of Writ Petition No.3031 of 2008, challenging the validity of the proceedings dated 13.11.2006 retiring him from service and the order dated 14.12.2007 rejecting his claim for alternative employment. The stand of the A.P.S.R.T.C is that the disability sustained by the petitioner did not occur during the course of his employment and he was found not fit to be retained in service as a driver and in view of the circular instructions passed on by the A.P.S.R.T.C on 26.08.2005, a driver can opt for retirement on medical grounds and that the petitioner has voluntarily submitted his option in Annexure-A on 20.07.2006 seeking to retire on medical grounds and accepting the same, the A.P.S.R.T.C has sanctioned him additional monetary benefits and having thus availed the alternative benefit, he cannot now seek for alternative employment. The stand of the petitioner is that he was not explained as to the significance of the statements contained in the printed format, Annexure-A, at the time when his signatures have been obtained thereon. The petitioner would submit that his own conduct in soliciting alternative employment all through will lend appropriate support to his claim that he was never in the know of the true contents of the Annexure-A or it’s effect on his claim for alternative employment in accordance with the provision contained in Section 47 of the Disabilities Protection Act.

3. At the meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific Region held at Beijing between 1st to 5th December, 1992, a Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region was adopted. India was a signatory to the said Proclamation and thus with a view to honour the international commitment made and to live up to it’s Social Responsibility to protect and provide for full participation and equity of the people with disabilities, the Indian Parliament enacted ‘The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Act 1 of 1996. Therefore, while dealing with the provisions contained in this enactment, every effort should be made to promote the social objective behin