IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

ORDER :

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.

Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Viswanatham, Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

2. The prayer sought in this Writ Petition is as under:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent passed in No.L1/876(01)/2024 – RMT) dated 29.2.2024 wherein and where under rejecting the request of the petitioner for alternative employment as Sramik, Kalsai or in any other Class IV post under office side amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 311 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER:

3. Writ Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Respondent No.2 Corporation in the year 2009 at Srikalahasti Depot; that while travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider, the Writ Petitioner met with an accident on 14.05.2016 and had severe injuries to both the legs, including fractures; that a year later, i.e., on 04.05.2017, the District Medical Board, Chittoor Camp, which examined the Writ Petitioner, had given a finding that the Writ Petitioner is suffering from “Post Traumatic Left Lower and Right Upper Limb” and that the percentage of disability is about 59% and recommended that he can only perform any kind of work by manipulating with fingers and pulling and pushing works by sitting and works related to reading and writing (Ex.P.10); that the Writ Petitioner was once again tested by the Corporation Hospital at Tarnaka, Hyderabad on 14.06.2017, where the Medical Board has certified that the Petitioner is unfit for driving due to knee meniscal tear, ‘foot drop’and ‘tracitial phloor injury’(this Certificate is filed along with the Counter Affidavit); that the Corporation has fixed Rs.4,00,000/- as Additional Monetary Benefit in lieu of ‘alternative employment’and had paid Rs.50,000/- on 18.06.2017; that the balance of amounts were also paid periodically on several dates; that on 26.07.2017 (Ex.P.7), the Chief Medical Officer at APSRTC Hospital, Vijayawada, had issued Proceedings to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Srikalahasti, basing on the observations of the Medical Board that met on 25th and 26th July, 2017, that the Petitioner is not only unfit to be a Driver, but, he is also unfit for all other ‘alternate categories’as per medical standards; that based on the Proceedings issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Vijayawada dated 26.07.2017 (Ex.P.7), the Respondent No.2 Corporation has passed the Final Order on 21.08.2017, by holding that the Petitioner is not only unfit to be Driver but also for all other categories as per Medical Standards (Ex.P.6); that the disability of the Writ Petitioner, in fact, has got reduced considerably and his condition has significantly improved; therefore, the Petitioner has made several oral Representations to the Respondent No.2 Corporation, stating that the Additional Monetary Benefit that was received by the Writ Petitioner in lieu of alternate employment was not voluntary, inasmuch as the Respondents have taken signatures on forms/papers and therefore same may be rolledback and provide him alternate employment because the Additional Monetary Benefit given, is not the same as alternate employment; that the Petitioner is willing to do any ground job; that one Written Representation was also given by the Writ Petitioner on 25.02.2023 (Ex.P.4) where he had stated that he had made several Representations and approached the Respondent authorities; that he had stated in the said Representation that he is fit for any ground job as he had recovered very well although he may not be ab