THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing suitable alternative employment to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act 49 of 2016 and in not paying salary from 23.08.2016 to till the date of filing of the writ petition to the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the APSRTC service regulations and the provisions of the Right of Person with Disabilities Act 2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to provide any alternative light duty job to the petitioner in the respondent organization with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the respondent organization. While he was on duty, driving an RTC bus in the year 2017, he fell down and he was detected to be suffering from seizure disorders. The Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) has suggested light duties as he was not fit for the job of a driver. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him light duties. In the meantime, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has amended the prayer and is challenging the rejection order dated

18.07.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has not been found to be unfit for any employment, but was found to be unfit only for driving and the NIMS medical certificate has clarified that though the petitioner is not fit for the job of a driver, he was suitable for light duties. It is submitted that under the The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 47 thereof, provides Non- discrimination in Government Employments. It is submitted that Sub-section (1) thereof prescribes that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service and provided that if any employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the respondents have clearly violated this provision of the Act and the respondents therefore, should be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Section 20 of Sub-section 4 thereof the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, also contains the very same provision. It is submitted that the respondents have thus clearly violated the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. T.Kishtaiah Vs. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, [W.P.Nos.34868 of 2016 and batch, dt.18.10.2016]

2. Chotu Baig Vs. The Telangana State Road Corporation, [W.P.No.13605 of 2016, dt.21.04.2016]

3. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. B.S.Reddy3

3 (2018) 12 SCC 704

4. Some literature on the Seizures and on the nature of the disability because of the Seizures

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and further relied upon the following judgments:

1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. M.Sudarshan4

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. B.S.Reddy, [MANU/SC/0363/2017]

3. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. N.Anjaiah, [W.A.Nos.196 of 2017 and batch, dt.25.03.2022]

4