The definition of disability under the Persons with Disabilities Act must be strictly adhered to, and delays in challenging administrative actions can bar relief.

ORDER :

Harinath. N, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the denial of wages, non-grant of continuity of service, and failure to protect the pay of the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.01.2008, whereby the respondent authority provided alternative appointment to the petitioner and posted him as Shramik at Nandikottukur Depot.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent as a Conductor on 19.03.1985 and his services were regularized on 01.07.1986. It is further submitted that the petitioner was removed from service on account of charges relating to cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and, having failed to succeed in his efforts for reinstatement, filed W.P.No.11837 of 1989 before this Court. This Court modified the order of removal and granted reinstatement into service without continuity of service and without back wages, appointing the petitioner afresh as a Conductor.

3. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the petitioner reported for duty with the respondent Corporation on 01.10.1997 and was reinstated as a fresh Conductor Grade-II. The petitioner was sent for medical examination on 15.10.1997 to the APSRTC Dispensary, Nandyal, and was declared medically unfit for the post of Conductor in A-2 category. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and, accordingly, the petitioner was made to retire from service with effect from 28.04.1998.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed an application before the Commissioner for Disabled Welfare and the State Commissioner under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The competent authority directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to provide him with a suitable job under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1955.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner joined duty in pursuance of the proceedings dated 11.01.2008 as a Shramik at Nandikottukur Depot. The petitioner sought for payment of salary for the period during which he was medically unfit and for the period during which he was not provided employment, and also sought that such period be treated as continuity of service for all other service benefits. The petitioner claims that the respondents have, so far, not considered the case of the petitioner, though he is entitled to such benefits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:

a) In APSRTC, Muesheerabad, Hyderabad and others vs. K.Moses , 2012(2) ALD 772 (DB), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the employer is bound to provide an alternate employment and that it is not necessary for an employee to solicit or explore all avenues/opportunities for securing alternate employment.

b) In Ch. S. Rajesewara Rao vs. Govt., of A.P., APSRTC, Regional Manager, Vijayawada, Divisional Manager; Depot Manager , 2022 6 ALT 269 , the learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various judgments, directed the respondents therein to pay salary for the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service and to grant increments at par with other employees of the Corporation in the post of Conductor.

c) In Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and other , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1048, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Persons with Disabilities Act is a benefic