Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

Both these writ appeals are preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and its officials under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the judgment and order rendered on 07.08.2015 in writ petition Nos.18451 and 21988 of 2015. The sole respondent in both these appeals is the writ petitioner concerned, who instituted the aforementioned two writ petitions.

Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant – corporation and Sri B.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents.

Since the contentions are common and also in view of the fact that both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment, it is only appropriate that both these appeals should be disposed of by this common order.

For convenience sake, we will set out, in detail, the facts leading to institution of W.P.No.18451 of 2015. The writ petitioner was employed in the service of the appellant – corporation as a conductor. He appears to have suffered a set back in his health. Consequently, finding that the notified doctor of the R.T.C. is not available at Kalwakurthy, the writ petitioner went to Are