IMPORTANT POINT
An employee who acquires a disability during service cannot be dismissed; they must be accommodated in suitable employment as per the law.

ORDER :

If health fails an employee in service whether the law fails him from service itself? The writ petitioner joined as a Casual Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) during the year 1990. His services were regularized from 01.08.1991. His services were confirmed from 01.08.1996. During October, 2003 he experienced difficulty in his vision. Then onwards he underwent medical examinations at APSRTC Dispensary, Vidyadarapuram, Vijayawada and at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad and he was diagnosed “RE Pseudophakic RD”. There was surgical intervention on 16.03.2004. He was examined and treated at Tarnaka Hospital. On multiple occasions he was examined by Medical Board. The Medical Board found him unfit for A-1 category duties on 19.07.2005 because of his defective distant vision (right loss of one eye). Consequently, on 27.07.2005 the APSRTC vide proceedings No.E1/468(5)/05/VDP dated 27.07.2005 applying Regulation No.6A(4) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 retired him from service of Corporation on medical grounds with effect from 19.07.2005.

2. Since 07.06.2004 the writ petitioner has been making representations seeking for alternative employment and his representations to Regional Manager, APSRTC, Managing Director, APSRTC, Transport Minister, Vice Chairman, APSRTC did not yield any result. Finally, he was retired from service as stated earlier. Explaining the difficulties he had undergone and the large family he must maintain and the agony added by his retirement he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer in the following terms:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the Proceedings E1/468(5)/05/VDP, dated 27.7.2005 issued by the Depot Manager, Vidyadarapuram Depot, Vijayawada that the petitioner is unfit for A-1 Category is illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salary from August, 2004 to till the date of retirement i.e., 19.7.2005 is illegal and arbitrary; (iii) declare the action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioner without following Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995 is illegal; and (iv) consequently direct the respondents to provide alternate employment to the petitioner in the same scale of pay with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. When this writ petition was filed in the year 2005, it was only against respondent Nos.1 to 3. However, since 01.01.2020 as the APSRTC as well as its employees have been absorbed into Government service, writ petitioner sought impleadment of the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondent No.4 and in that regard filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 and after due hearing the same was allowed and accordingly respondent No.4 came on record.

4. On 17.08.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.23046 of 2005, this Court passed the following interim order:

“Interim suspension of the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in any other alternative post to which he is eligible without affecting monetary benefit.”

5. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the learned counsel for writ petitioner and Sri M.Solomon Raju, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submitted arguments.

6. All the facts mentioned in the writ petition are not in dispute. The fact that writ petitioner was a driver and as he suffered right eye blindness, the employer retired him from service are all matters of fact that are not in dispute.

7. The only question that falls for consideration is:

“Whether this disability that befell on the writ petitioner should cost him his employment?”

8. Answer lie