THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26772 of 2019

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation on daily wages in the year 1987 and was subsequently regularized with effect from 01.07.1988. At a periodical medical examination conducted on 12.10.2011 at the Zonal Hospital, Karimnagar, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the post of Driver in Al Category due to 'Defective Distance Vision Bilateral. On being declared medically unfit on 12.10.2011, vide Office Order dated 21.04.2011, he was compulsorily retired and paid Additional Monetary Benefits in lieu of employment. Petitioner contends that no opportunity was given to seek alternate employment, and due to illiteracy and financial distress, he accepted the benefits without being informed of his right to alternative employment under the Dependants Employment Scheme. He claims that his family, including his unemployed son, has suffered severe hardship. Further case of the petitoner is that he made a representation on 12.09.2017 seeking computation of salary from the date of retirement till the notional date of superannuation, after deducting the benefits paid, and for compassionate appointment to his son, and the same was rejected by the respondent on 26.09.2017. Hence the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit.

3. Sri N.Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation, basing on the counter affidavit, would mainly contend that the petitioner was retired from service on being declared medically unfit by the Medical Board, and he was also paid Additional Monetary Benefit of Rs.5,67,970/-, in lieu of alternative employment, under Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964; and once the monetary additional benefit has been accepted, the right to claim alternative employment stands forfeited, apart from forfeiture of salary from the date of medical retirement until superannuation, or claims of appointment for his son. It is further contended that under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3529 of 2017, the benefits under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, are available only to individuals who fall within the scope of disabilities defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, which does not cover the petitioner’s condition. Moreover, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 24.02.2018, the Government of Telangana has exempted TSRTC from the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, thereby rendering such provisions inapplicable to the Corporation. The respondent further contends that the impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2017 are legally valid and sustainable, and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the post of Driver by the competent Medical Board; and therefore he was retired in accordance with the service regulations and was paid Additional Monetary Benefit of Rs.5,67,970/-, which he voluntarily accepted without raising any contemporaneous objection. The petitioner’s plea that he was unaware of his right to alternative employment is not supported by any evidence, and his delayed representation made after more than five years cannot be entertained. Moreover, the medical condition (Defective Distance Vision Bilateral) is not an enlisted disability under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the respondent-Corporation is exempted from the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 24.02.2018.

5. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3529 of 2017, once Additional Monetary Benefit is accepted, the right