APHC010171152018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7556/2018 Between: 1. B. BALAJI SINGH,, S/O. B.HARI NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. 15-77, KISHAN SINGH STREET, ATMAKUR (MANDAL), KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ATMAKUR BUS DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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 to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners case for alternative appointment to any suitable post on medical grounds as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to provide alternative employment under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act 1995 and in terms of orders in W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch, dated. 5.6.2017 to any suitable alternative job and pass 2 VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018 IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 case for alternative appointment in terms of orders in W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch, dated. 5.6.2017, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIJAYA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners case for alternative appointment to any suitable post on medical grounds as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to provide alternative employment under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act 1995 and in terms of orders in W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch, dated. 5.6.2017 to any suitable alternative job and pass…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as conductor on 01.07.1989 in the 1st respondent’s corporation and was transferred to the depot of the 2nd respondent in the year 1990 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1991. Ever since, the petitioner has been working to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. 3. While the matter stood thus, as the petitioner was falling sick frequently, he was sent to medical examination by the 2nd respondent to APSRTC, Dispensary, Nandyal; subsequently, he was declared as unfit for the post of conductor due to B/L (personal Perennial Neuropathy) by way of a letter dated 02.09.2016. As such, when the petitioner submitted a representation to provide employment to his son, the respondent 4 VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018 corporation relieved the petitioner from duty vide letter dated 14.10.2016. However, as the respondent corporation has neither paid disability compensation nor provided employment to his son, the petitioner submitted representations on 14.09.2017 and 06.12.2017 to the respondent authorities with a request to provide alternative appointment to him under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in providing alternative employment to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent corporation as conductor and further contended that he was referred to the senior medical officer, APSRTC dispensary, Nandyal for periodical medical examination and on such examination, the petitioner was referred to Tarnaka Hospital for treatment of Cervical Spondylosys with Tremors; during the course of treatment, the authorities have suggested the petitioner with MTD 430 to assess the suitability of the petitioner for appointment to A2 category; however, the petitioner was declared as unfit by the Senior Medical Officer, APSRTC dispensary, Nandyal vide M.C.No.256032, dated 02.09.2016 for A2 category. Subsequently, on a representation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent permitted 5 VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018 the petitioner to retire from service on medical grounds on 15.09.2016 and the petitioner was paid provident fund of Rs.2,17,632/- on 30.12.2016, Gratuity (80%) of Rs.3,86,616/- on 19.01.2017 and SBTF of Rs.49,362/- on 30.11.2017; however, Rs.96,654/- pertaining to 20% of the gratuity and Rs.20,851/- towards final settlement of salary are to be released. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to benefits under Section 47 of the Act, however, the request of the petitioner to provide employment to his son is under process. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mrs. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent authorities have neither provided alternative employment to him or his son, nor have paid the additional monetary benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.58, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PTD.I) department, dated 26.12.2025. On such, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation requesting to consider his case for alternative employment or for payment of additional monetary benefits, the same would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. 6 VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018 7. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent authorities ventilating his grievance, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance to the rules in force, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 13.07.2026 Gss