APHC011024052017 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: 44430/2017 Between: 1. O. SRINIVASA RAO, E.753416, DRIVER, H.NO.10-1-114, MEHER NAGAR, OLD GAZUVAKA, VISHAKAPATANM-530026. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (TRANSPORT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,, AMARAVATI. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. 3. A P S R T C, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, VISHAKAPATNAM REGION, VISHAKAPATNAM. 4. THE MEDICAL BOARD, REP. BY CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, A.P.S.R.T.C. HOSPITAL, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 5. A P S R T C, A.P.S.R.T.C. VISHAKA STEEL CITY DEPOT, VISHAKAPATNAM. ...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 an appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the office order No.P2/467(2)/17-VSC dated 18.09.2017 retiring the 2 petitioner from service on medical grounds with effect from 29.08.2017, is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, discriminatory in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to provide suitable alternative post to the petitioner as per Section 20 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, duly protecting the pay scale of the post of driver with all consequential service benefits including payment of salary for the interregnum period, in the interest of justice and fair play IA NO: 1 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 grant an interim direction to the Respondents to direct the petitioner to the Government Medical Board at Government Hospital. Visakhapatnam to determine the medical fitness for alternative employment, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TRANSPORT (AP) 2. K SRINIVASA PRASAD 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 office order of the 5th respondent dated 18.09.2017 retiring the petitioner on medical grounds with effect from 29.08.2017 duly extending all the benefits as per revised regulations. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was A1 category driver in the respondent corporation and he complained ill health, then he was referred to the medical officer concerned for examination and the medical officer declared him unfit for the post of Driver under A1 category due to profound SN hearing loss in both ears, Vertigo, tinnitus. Then he was referred to the Medical Board for examination. The Chief Medical Officer, APSRTC Hospital, Vijayawada vide letter dated 29.08.2017, after examination declared that the petitioner Driver is 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 “severe sensory neural hearing loss”. Accordingly, he was made to retire from service as per the impugned office order of the 5th respondent dated 18.09.2017. The said action of the respondent authorities concerned is ultra vires and contrary to law. The petitioner in such case ought to have been accommodated alternatively in the 4 employment but the respondent corporation abruptly disqualified for such alternative employment and made the petitioner to retire from service under the impugned office order dated 18.09.2017. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation submits that after medical examination duly at two stages as per the regulations of the corporation, the petitioner was found to be unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category and also unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards of the corporation and he is suffering from severe sensory neural hearing loss. In view of the same, the 5th respondent was constrained to pass the above said impugned office order dated 18.09.2017. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action of the respondent corporation is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in similar set of facts and circumstances. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his representation enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the respondent corporation seeking alternative employment depending upon his health condition within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such receipt of representation from the petitioner, the respondent corporation shall consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner giving due 5 opportunity and upon obtaining the medical report of the petitioner, after referring to the medical examination afresh and basing upon such medical health condition of the petitioner and basing upon the medical report of the petitioner issued by the competent medical authorities concerned, appropriate decision afresh shall be taken by the respondent corporation for providing an alternative employment to the petitioner by awarding necessary other benefits like salary and allowances in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible by considering the representation of the petitioner afresh on its own merits within a period of four (4) months thereafter. Due opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to represent his case personally. 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