ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No.3 in terminating the petitioner from employment, vide order No.E2/255(2)/2014-JPT, dated 04.09.2014, on medical grounds without providing alternative employment as per Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (for short, ’the Act, 1995’), as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to provide suitable alternative post to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including payment of salary, from the date of declaration of medically unfit till the date of providing alternative post.

02. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents-Corporation.

03. The petitioner’s case is that on 30.01.2012, the Respondents-Corporation engaged the petitioner as a driver on contract basis. On 08.07.2013, the petitioner underwent a periodic medical examination, where he was found unfit for the A1 category driver post due to colour blindness. On appeal, the petitioner was directed to A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, where he was also declared unfit for the driver post on 16.07.2013 and the petitioner was further subjected to a medical examination before the Medical Board, where the Superintendent, Tarnaka Hospital, declared the petitioner as unfit for the driver post due to colour blindness, vide letter No. SP/19(M.B.9)/2014-TH, dated 25.06.2014. Due to the said disability, the petitioner was terminated from employment. Aggrieved by the illegal termination, the petitioner preferred the writ petition and relied upon the provision of Section 47(1) of the Act, 1995, and claims that the respondents-Corporation did not consider his case for alternative employment.

04. The respondents filed their counter stating that the colour blindness disability is not covered under Sections 2(b) and 2(i) of the Act, 1995 and draws the attention of this Court to the judgment, dated 23.02.2017, in S.L.P. Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the S.L.P. confirming the order, dated 29.01.2016, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.36337/2012 and batch cases by setting aside the common order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No1120 of 2015 and batch, holding that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act would be available to only those who are covered by Section 2(i) of the Act and directed the Corporation to take a decision on the individual grievance of the employees and the employees are at liberty to take their remedies in terms of the above judgment.

05. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment, dated 06.11.2017, in W.A. No.1635 of 2017, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was held that under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a settlement arrived between the A.P.S.R.T.C. employees’ union and the Management in the presence of the Joint Commissioner of Labour. Clause (14) of the said settlement deals with colour- blind drivers, is extracted in the order at paragraph 11, which reads as under:

‘11. Paragraph No.14 of the said settlement reads as under:

“14. Colour blind drivers:

a) The long pending issue has been decided and it was agreed to given alternate job to the Drivers found colour blind during the periodical examination. While giving the alternate job, the time scale and pay drawn by the Driver at the time of disqualification would be protected. Circular instructions would be issued in this regard incorporating the cases arising after the issue of circular No.P1/210(1)/76-PD, dt.16-08-

1976.

b) Having been the alternative job, the seniority of Drivers will, however, be continued in the Drivers cadre, and they shall take their further promotions at appropriate time as per Cadre &

Recruitment Regulations.

c) Drivers who are found Colour Blind during perio