APHC010764672014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22741/2014 Between: 1. AGNEPALLI HARI PRASAD, S/O.SANYASI RAO, OCC: ASSISTANT DEPOT CLERK, A.P.S.R.T.C. ELURU DEPOT, ELURU CITY, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC 'X' ROADS, BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents on the petitioner representation dated 24.08.2013 submitted for payment of salary arrears during the periods i.e., 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011 while kept the petitioner under compulsory leave by treating LWP (Loss Working Period) as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and settled principles of service jurisprudence and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary arrears for the periods i.e., 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011 and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 28514 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2013 submitted for payment of salary arrears during the period's i.e., 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011 while kept the petitioner's under compulsory leave by treating LWP (Loss Working Period), pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 32964 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fixing at an early date of hearing the W.P. No. 22741 of 2014 and to dispose off the case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of salary for the period from 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011 as a same is treated as Loss Working Period by the respondents. The petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to consider his representation on 24.08.2013 seeking salary arrears for the said period. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver (Grade-I) in the year 1987 and his services were regularized on 01.07.1988. The petitioner performed his duty as a driver ever since the petition was appointed. On 24.07.2010, the respondents conducted medical examination to the petitioner and the petitioner was found medically unfit to perform the duty of a driver on account of defective colour vision. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Medical Officer, Hyderabad and the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review before the Medical Board and the Medical Board examined the petitioner on 16.06.2011, the review was also rejected and the petitioner was found unfit to perform the duty of a Driver (Grade-I). 4. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Depot Clerk vide proceedings dated 20.12.2011. Thereafter, vide proceeding dated 20.12.2011 the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk. The period during which the petition was kept out of service i.e. 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011 on account of the inaction on the part of the respondent corporation in 4 providing alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.5486 of 2011, whereby, in similar issue filed for consideration of this Court and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay the salary for the period during which the petitioner therein was not on duty and the said period was considered as a loss working period. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the petitioner may submit a fresh representation duly annexing the copy of the judgment passed by this Court for considering the release of the salary for the period during which the petitioner was not on duty. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. Perused the record. 9. The short point for consideration is, whether the petitioner would have been kept out of service without pay on account of the disability which was acquired during the course of employment. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 would categorically make it clear that the employee would have to 5 be protected under Section 47 of the Act. The petitioner admittedly has acquired the disability during the course of employment and the respondents have issued orders of appointment, appointing the petitioner as Assistant Depot Clerk after a lapse of 11 months. However, the petitioner would be entitled for salary and other benefits for the period 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011, as the petitioner was kept out of employment for no fault of the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that, the petitioner’s retirement should not preclude the respondent authorities in disbursing the salary for the said period, duly treating the petitioner in the post of Assistant Depot Clerk. 11. The period during which the petitioner was out of service as ‘compulsory wait’ should not preclude the respondents from releasing the salary for said period as the petitioner was kept out of service under the terminology of ‘compulsory wait’ without any fault of the petitioner. 12. Following the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.5486 of 2011, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to disburse the petitioner’s salary for the period 24.07.2010 to 16.06.2011. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 29.04.2026 SR