APHC010658452017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 28601/2017 Between: 1. CH. SHIVAYYA (SIVAIAH), S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, (E- 371167),, DRIVER OF APSRTC, NUZVID DEPOT,' WO.D.NO. 1- 86, KONIJERLA, LINGAPALEM VILLAGE & MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C KRISHNA REGION, PANDIT NEHRU BUS COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C NUZVID DEPOT NUZVID, KRISHNA 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 toto issue a Writ, order or direCtion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarnus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in issuing the proceedings No.P1/469. (06)12016- Nuzvid Dated: 23-09-2016 by 3rd. Respondent by ordering that the Petitioner be retired from the services of the Corporation on Medical grounds w.e.f., 15-09-2016 (Order copy was served on 27-06- 2 2017), further confirming the same by ri Respondent in proceedings No.P2/255(1)2017-PO-III dated 13-07-2017 and by rejecting the request of the. Petitioner to provide alternative Job, which is.. illegal, .arbitrary, unconstitutional, discrimination, unjust contra to the provisions of Persons Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to provide any other alternative Job to the Petitioner in the Respondent Corporation IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 35568 OF 2017 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 provide any other alternative Job to the petitioenr in the A.P.S.R.T.C., pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VENKATA RAO SC For APSRTC 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 23.09.2016 retiring the petitioner from the service of the corporation on medical grounds with effect from 15.09.2016 by serving the order copy on 27.06.2017 further confirming the same by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 13.07.2017 rejecting the request of the petitioner to provide an alternative job. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was duly appointed as A1 Category Driver in the respondent corporation and served for a long time. In view of the deterioration of his health condition specifically with respect to the eyes, he was examined for the same by the medical officer by conducting periodical medical examination. He was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to colour blindness vide medical certificate of the Senior Medical Officer of VDPM, Vijayawada dated 02.08.2016. On appeal, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chairman, Medical Board, APSRTC, Tarnaka Hospital, Hyderabad for re-medical examination. In re-medical examination also he was found unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category and also unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards of APSRTC due to colour blindness. In terms of the 4 regulations 6A(5) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 and as per the instructions dated 23.06.2014 since the employee was found medically unfit to discharge the duties of his post held by him, he shall be retired from the service on the medical grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner was made to retire from the service of the corporation on medical grounds with effect from 15.09.2016. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition was filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Ch. Joseph Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Other1 in SLP (Civil) No.36278 of 2017 dated 01.08.2025 the employees with conditions like colour blindness although not falling within the defined categories of the statute, must still be accommodated wherever their functional capacity permits. To do otherwise would result in a regressive interpretation of the law, undermining the very foundation of equal opportunity in public employment. Accordingly, the respondent corporation therein was directed to appoint the appellant therein to a suitable post, consistent with his condition, and on the same pay grade as he held on 06.01.2016 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. The appellant therein shall be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary, allowances and benefits from the date of his termination to the date of reinstatement. The intervening period shall be reckoned as continuous 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763 5 service for all purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks similar relief from the respondent corporation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation submits that in view of the health condition of the petitioner, as he was suffering from colour blindness and not suitable for any other posts including the Driver post, the petitioner was made to retire from services of the corporation on medical grounds with effect from 15.09.2016. In view of the same, the other aspects such as arrears of salary etc., are not considered by the corporation as he was duly made to retire from service on account of disqualification. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, since the petitioner was admittedly a Driver of A1 category served the corporation for long years and as he developed some illness specifically relating to the eyes for colour blindness, the case of the petitioner may be considered for alternative appointment suitable to his health condition as he is having still age for the service before attaining the normal age of superannuation. For the said purpose, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondent corporation enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent corporation is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by causing medical examination afresh 6 from the competent authorities concerned and basing upon the medical report, appropriate decision shall be taken in the case of the petitioner herein for providing alternative employment in respondent corporation other than a post of Driver subject to his entitlement and suitability following the legal position and the fresh decision shall be taken on its own merits with reference to the impugned proceedings herein. The said exercise shall be completed and final decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months thereafter. The providing of alternative employment and paying of arrears of salary shall be in accordance with law, the petitioner also may be heard by giving reasonable opportunity. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 17.08.2026 NNN