IMPORTANT POINT
Retrospective retirement on medical grounds is illegal; employees' family members are entitled to alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to call for records from the respondents and issue appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.E2/469(2)/2018-WL-2 dated 14.11.2018 received on 28.11.2018 retiring me from the service on Medical Grounds with retrospective effect i.e., 07.08.2018 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, victimization, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant consequential benefits”

2. Heard Mrs. K.V.Vani, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Mr. B.Krishna Karthik, learned counsel representing Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents.

3. Brief facts:

Petitioner was appointed as Driver in respondent Corporation on 20.04.2005 on daily wage basis and his services were regularized with effect from 14.05.2015. Petitioner was subjected to periodical medical examination and the Medical Officer, TSRTC Dispensary, Warangal, examined the petitioner and declared him unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to colour blindness vide M.C.No.019175 dated 18.05.2018. Petitioner preferred an appeal and was directed to appear before the Medical Committee, Tarnaka Hospital, Hyderabad. Petitioner was examined on 30.05.2018 by Medical Committee and was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to progressive retinal disease with field defects. Petitioner was re-examined by Medical Board and vide letter dated 07.08.2018, Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to “colour blindness & progressive retinal disease” as per the medical standards of TSRTC. It was further stated in the letter that petitioner is not eligible for alternative employment in terms of circular dated 14.05.2015 and is eligible for additional monetary benefit upon retirement on medical grounds. Vide order dated 14.11.2018, petitioner was made to retire from service on medical grounds with effect from 07.08.2018. The order dated 14.11.2018 is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 2005 and his services were regularized in the year 2015. It is further submitted that on 18.05.2018, petitioner was subjected to medical examination and in the medical examination, it was declared by Medical Officer that petitioner was unfit for service in class A1 category due to colour blindness. It is also submitted that on an appeal, petitioner was examined by Medical Committee on 30.05.2018 and he was declared as unfit for A1 category due to progressive retinal disease with field defects. It is submitted that petitioner was re-examined on 07.08.2018 and he was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to “Colour Blindness & Progressive Retinal Disease.”

4.1 It is submitted that by order dated 14.11.2018, petitioner was made to retire from service on medical grounds from 07.08.2018 and that petitioner could not have been made to retire from a retrospective date and such retirement from retrospective date is not valid in the eye of law. It is further submitted that petitioner is entitled for alternative employment to the post of Shramik or Record Tracer as he had studied up to 10th class and not providing alternative job is contrary to the provisions of Section 47(1) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’). It is also submitted that as per Section 20 of the Act 2016, there can be no discrimination in employment and if there is no possibility of adjustment of the employee against any post, he can be kept on a superannuation post, until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

4.2 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per circula