1. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the APSRTC on 04.08.1989. While working, he was directed to undergo medical examination. He was found unfit for the post of driver, vide MC No.024487, dated 08.02.2006, due to defective distant vision. As such, he was retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 08.06.2006 under regulation 6-A(4) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1964 (for short ‘the Service Regulations’). He submitted representation dated 30.12.2006 and opted in the prescribed proforma for payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment in terms of circular No.PD-40/2005, dated 26.08.2005 and PD-30/2006, dated 20.07.2006. On his representation as referred above, additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,61,100/- was paid through cheque No.459876, dated 31.03.2007 and 35057, dated 31.12.2007 duly deducting the loan amount of CCS Rs.32,214/-. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No.22765 of 2008 and this Court passed the following interim order in WPMP No.29634 of 2008.

“There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment, if he is found medically unfit to hold the post of Driver, as per the provision of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. Thereafter, the appellants/respondents passed orders dated 15.12.2008 stating that since the writ petitioner has accepted additional monetary benefit offered to him, in lieu of alternative employment, he is not entitled for the alternative employment as per the circular instructions in force. The same was questioned by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12830 of 2009.

3. Relying on Regulation 6-A(4) of the Service Regulations as well as Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 17.02.2012 directing the appellants to issue appointment orders appointing the writ petitioner to any other suitable post under Section 47 of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this Court has passed orders on 18th October 2008 in WPMP No.29634 of 2008 in W.P. No.22765 of 2008 and the appellants have not followed the said orders and issued the impugned proceedings on 15.12.2008, the said appointment order shall be deemed to have been issued with effect from 15.12.2008 and the writ petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits from 15.12.2008 i.e., back wages from such date. It is also made clear that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service, but no other attendant benefits or back wages except to the extent indicated above shall be given. As far as the amount already received by the writ petitioner is concerned, the same shall be adjusted towards the arrears of back wages to be paid to the writ petitioner to be calculated with effect from 15.12.2008 and if any excess amount is to be recovered from the writ petitioner the same shall be recovered in easy monthly instalments from his salary. The same is challenged in this Writ Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the respondent/writ petitioner himself submitted a representation, additional monetary benefit was given which was accepted by the writ petitioner, as such, he cannot turn back and file the writ petition seeking alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Act, that the writ petitioner should have opted for reversion, instead, he opted for additional monetary benefit, that the writ petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate and that the learned Single Judge has not taken these facts into consideration while allowing the writ petition.

5. On the other h