JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Challagali Gopala Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a casual conductor in the Corporation in the year 1984 and his services were regularized in the year 1987. While he was on duty he met with an accident and was hospitalized and after first aid treatment he was sent to Corporation hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad from where on medical advise he was sent to Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, “NIMS”) and in operation of spinal cord his two discs were removed. The corporation retired the petitioner from service on medical ground vide order dated 21.07.2001. The petitioner made several representations for providing alternative employment to which the corporation paid no attention.

3. The petitioner filed Case No.165 of 2005 (Ch. S. Rajeshwara Rao vs. The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C and others) before the Commissioner, Disabled Welfare & State Commissioner under Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (in short, “the Commissioner”) in which the Commissioner vide order dated 25.09.2006 set aside the proceedings dated 21.07.2001, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short, the Act, 1995), within specified period.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2006, the petitioner was continued in service vide order dated 15.02.2007 and his services were utilised at bus pass station, Governorpet-I Depot, vide order dated 21.02.2007 and since then he continued. The petitioner requested the Corporation for payment of wages for the interregnum period from 21.07.2001 upto 15.02.2007, with increments as also for pay fixation in the cadre of conductor but without any response from the Corporation.

5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs :

“…….the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries from the date of medical unfit to till the date of alternative employment i.e. 21.07.2001 to 15.02.2007 and pay fixation difference with notional increments to the above period, as illegal, arbitrary and violative to Section 47 of the Act, 1995 and is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the wages from the date of medical unfit to till the date of alternative employment i.e. 21.07.2001 to 15.02.2007 and pass such other order or orders.”

6. Sri Ch. Gopal Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the statutory provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner ought to have been offered alternative employment to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The petitioner is entitled to receive the salary for the interregnum period.

7. Sri Ch. Gopal Raju placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Bhagwan Dass and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 242, K. Moses vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., (W.P.No.3031 of 2008, decided on 01.11.2010 and Laxmi Kant Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, 2018 LawSuit (All) 1355.

8. Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that the writ petition suffers from laches. The petitioner is claiming salary w.e.f 21.07.2001 upto 15.02.2007 by filing petition in the year 2011.

9. Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad next submitted that for claiming relief in the light of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, the disability must be one of those specified in Section 2(i) of the Act, 1995. He placed reliance on the judgment of th