APHC010110102012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24732/2012 Between: S. Chidambaram, ...PETITIONER AND The A P State Road Transport Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) The Court made the following: ORDER:- This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…. pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying the retirement benefits including the additional monetary benefits to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. Consequently, direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits including additional monetary benefits in lieu of a suitable alternative employment to the petitioner forthwith and pass ….”. 2 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Respondents’ Corporation and later his services were regularized. During a periodical medical checkup at APSRTC Hospital, Rajahmundry, petitioner was declared medically unfit to continue as a driver. Consequently, respondents have retired him from service on medical grounds in 1993 without being provided alternative employment. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.1512 of 1995 and the same was disposed of on 29.10.1994, with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for alternative employment. Pursuant to a common order in W.P.Nos.18172 of 1993 and 18175 of 1993, the respondents have prepared a regional seniority list of medically unfit drivers, placing the petitioner at Serial No.9. Despite the availability of vacancies, the respondents have failed to provide an alternative job to the petitioner. Despite making multiple representations by the petitioner, his request was not considered and he ultimately attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011 without being re-employed. After retirement, the petitioner sought payment of his retirement benefits, but the respondents did not take any action. Even the petitioner issued a legal notice on 23.03.2012, there was no response from the respondents nor his retirement benefits were paid. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the common judgment dated 08.09.2016 passed by the erstwhile High Court at 3 Hyderabad in W.A.Nos.246 of 2016 & batch, wherein the same were dismissed by confirming the common order dated 29.01.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.36337 & batch, where under the erstwhile High Court allowed the writ petitions with the following observations, which reads as under:- “1) All the drivers who are not assigned work after they were declared as medically unfit are entitled to pay and allowances attached to the post of Driver till they were retired from service/alternative job is provided to them. They shall be paid arrears of pay and allowances with 8% interest from the due date till the date of payment. This direction is general and applicable to all Drivers. The Corporations shall undertake review of all such claims and shall ensure that no driver is denied pay and allowances on this issue. The order shall be complied within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the Order. 2) Petitioners and all Drivers who are declared as unfit to drive on account of ‘acquiring disability’ while in service are entitled to provision of alternative job as a matter of course. The Corporations shall endeavor to provide alternative job of the same status. For any reason, alternative job of the same status is not possible and the drivers are adjusted in any other post, they shall be paid the same pay and allowances as were paid to them as Drivers including the annual increments. 3) If alternative job cannot be provided, the Drivers shall be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or till he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier and shall be paid pay and allowances of the post of Drivers until they attained the age of superannuation. 4). These directions are applicable to all similarly situated drivers.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the same. 6. By observing the above common judgment, this Court is also inclined to allow this writ petition in terms of the common order passed in W.P.Nos.36337 & batch, dated 29.01.2016. 4 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is also allowed in terms of the common order passed in W.P.Nos.36337 & batch, dated 29.01.2016. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the common order dated 29.01.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.36337 & batch, to this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 06.03.2025 SCS 5 218 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24732/2012 Date :06.03.2025 SCS