High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No_3 herein rejecting the petitioner case for compute the salaries from the date of medical retirement till the date of attaining the age of superannuation and to pay the differential amount after deducting the amount paid towards Additional Monetary Benefits and to provide employment to my son on compassionate grounds under Dependants Employment Scleme by an office order No.P2l756(7)120'l 1- HZB,dated.26tO9t2O17, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents appoint the case of the petitioner son for appointment on compassionate grounds under Dependants Employment Scheme. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents compute the sararies from the date of medicar retirement ti, the date of attaining the age of superannuation and to pay the differential amount after deducting the amount paid towards Additionar l\/onerary Benefits and to provide employment to petitioner son on compassionate Emproyment scheme pendins disposar of the main *:,,#Iil"er Counset for the petitioner: Dependants SRI G. RAJESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRt N. CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.26772 of 2OL9 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation on daily wages in the year 1987 and was subsequently regularized with effect from 0 i.07. 1988. At a periodical medical examination conducted on 12.10.2011 at the Zonal Hospital, Karimnagar, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the post of Driver in Al Category due to 'Defective Distance Vision Bilateral. On being declared medically unfit on 12.lO.2OLl, uide Office Order dated 27.04.2011, he was compulsorily retired and paid Additional Monetary Benefits in lieu of employment' Petitioner contends that no opportunity was given to seek alternate employment, and due to illiteracy and financial distress, he accepted the benehts without being informed of his right to alternative employment under the Dependants Employment Scheme. He claims that his family, including his unemployed son, has suffered severe hardship. Further case of the petitoner is that he made a representation on 12.O9.2OI7 seeking computation of salary from the date of retirement till the notional date of i,l ,ii .- 2 superannuation, after deducting the benefits paid, ald for compassionate appointment to his son, and the same was rejected by the respondent on 26.O9.2017. Hence the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the Iines of writ a-ffrdavit.

3. Sri N.Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation, basing on the counter afhdavit, wouid mainly contend that the petitioner was retired from service on being declared medically unfit by the Medicai Board, and he was also paid Additional Monetary Benefit of Rs.5,67,97O1-, tn lieu of alternative employment, under Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964; ar,d once the monetary additional beneht has been accepted, the right to claim alternative employment stalds forfeited, apart from forfeiture of sa1ary from the date of medical retirement until superannuation, or claims of appointment for his son. It is further contended that under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3529 of 2Ol7, the benefrts under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, are available only to individuals who fall L 3 within the scope of disabilities dehned under Section 2(i) of the Act, which does not cover the petitioner's condition. Moreover, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 24.O2.2018, the Government of Telangana has exempted TSRTC from the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, thereby rendering such provisions inapplicable to the Corporation. The respondent further contends that the irnpugned proceedings dated O6.O3.2017 are legally valid and sustainable, and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was declared medically unht for the post of Driver by the competent Medical Board; and therefore he was retired in ( accordance with the service regulations and was paid Additional Monetary Benefit of Rs.5,67,970/ , which he voluntarily accepted without raising any contemporaneous objection. The petitioner's plea that he was unaware of his right to alternative employment is not supported by any evidence, and his delayed representation made after more than five years cannot be entertained. Moreover, the medical condition (Defective Distance Vision Bilateral) is not an .1 4 enlisted disability under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the respondent Corporation is exempted from the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016 by G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 24.02.2018.

5. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3529 of 2017, once Additiona-l Monetary Benefrt is accepted, the right to claim alternative employment or related benehts stands forfeited. Therefore, this Court frnds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOMINA MEHAR STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to Sri G. Rajesh, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD CoPies To, TJ BS 1 2 3 HIGH COURT DATED:21 104t2025 ORDER 1HE S t4 14. i.) ,U 13il8m (s 't C. WP.No.26772 of 2019 \,-- .'.. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v .( (a I l