APHC010384932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 865/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the order of the this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.21041/2014 dated 20.11.2024, the appellants herein beg to prefer the above appeal for the following among other Between: 1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD, NOW AT VIJAYAWADA 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NEC REGION, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC SALUR DEPOT SALUR VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. PANDRANKI GOPALA RAO, S/o Janaki, Aged 52 years, Occ E455657, Shramik, APSRTC, Salur Depot, R/o Rama Colony Salur. Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 condone the delay of 194 Days in filing the appeal against W.P.No. 21041 of 2014 dated 20.11.2024 and pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 stay the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.No.21041/2014 dated 20.11.2024 pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.865 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) The writ appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the order, dated 20.11.2024 in W.P.No.21041 of 2014 passed by the learned single Judge. 2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on daily wages on 12.09.1987 in the respondent Transport Corporation. His services were regularized on 22.09.1987. Vide proceedings, dated 07.08.2009, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for A1 category Driver. Thereafter, he was put on off duty. The competent medical officer has certified that the petitioner is unfit as A1 category driver. Thereafter, to provide alternative employment to the petitioner, the respondents posted him as Shramik on 07.03.2011. As such, the petitioner is claiming salary for the period from 08.08.2009 from which date he was declared medically unfit for A1 category driver vide proceedings, dated 07.08.2009, till posting him as Shramik i.e., 09.03.2011. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on relying the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.571 of 2014 in which identical facts had been considered wherein the appellants therein were directed to pay the salary to the respondent-employee as may be 4 applicable to the post of Shramik for the period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006 and the same was followed in W.P.No.22199 of 2012 was pleased to allow the present writ petition holding that the denial of wages for the period from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 has to be found fault with in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to release the wages to the petitioner for a period from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the respondents are directed to make the payment to the petitioner as applicable to the post of Shramik for the said period. Against the said order, the present writ appeal is filed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that this appeal is filed only after filing of the contempt case filed by the writ petitioner against the willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition. 6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner who was working as driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was declared medically unfit for A1 category driver vide proceedings, dated 07.08.2009 as per the certificate issued by the competent medical officer. Thereafter, he was posted as Shramik on 07.03.2011 by way of alternative employment and he joined in that post on 10.03.2011. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is claiming 5 salary for the period from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011. It appears in an identical circumstances, an employee of the respondent-Corporation approached this Court seeking the similar relief and a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition and aggrieved by the same, the State Road Transport Corporation preferred W.A.No.571 of 2014 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the same directing the Transport Corporation to pay salary to the employee for the relevant period for which he is entitled. By following the same, in several cases this Court passed orders like in W.P.No.22199 of 2012. 8. It is an admitted fact that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner in not attending the duties with effect from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011. One can understand that he is not entitled for any salary, if he is unauthorized absent for that period. But, in the present case, while he was working as driver in the respondent-Corporation, basing on the medical certificate issued by the competent authority, the respondent authorities themselves declared vide proceedings, dated 07.08.2009 that the petitioner is medically unfit for A1 category driver. When they declared like that, they have to provide alternative employment immediately to the petitioner for which he is legitimately entitled for under the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. But, the respondent authorities without providing alternative employment immediately to the petitioner dragged the matter for more than one and half years. The delay occurred in providing alternative employment to the petitioner has to be attributable to the respondent-Corporation officials only 6 not against the petitioner. When they provided alternative employment to the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 07.03.2011, immediately he joined as Shramik and discharging his duties and as such, till that time he is entitled for the salary from the respondent-Corporation. Besides this, the learned single Judge rightly directed the respondents to release the payment of salary to the petitioner as applicable to the post of Shramik for the said period. 9. In view of the above, in our considered view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge and as such interference of the said order is unwarranted. 10. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 09.03.2026 PGR 7 [121] THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA W.A.No.865 of 2025 Dt. 09.03.2026 PGR