Writ Petition No. 22109 of 2021 · The High Court · 2025

Petition Under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay of all further proceedings in, pursuance of the order passed by the Learned singre judge in wP No.22109 of 2021 dated 1sr10r2024, pending disposar of the writ appeal |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Between: Y.Yadaiah, S/o Babu Rao, Aged 50 yrs,.Occ Driver, R/o H.No.171_1811N40, Chandraiah Huts Madannapdt SaidabaA Hyde;ba; T S .RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND

1. Sri Khusro Shah Khan, Regional [\/anager, TS R T C, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad District T S

2. TSRTC Corporation, Midhani Depot Hyderabad, Rep. b,/ V C and M D, (R2 is impleaded as per Court Order, dated 2310312023 in l.A.No.1/2023) ....,PETITIONER/ APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS Petitron Under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interrm directron passed in W.A.No. 1393 of 2024 dated 13.122024 and dismiss the writ appeal Counsel for Appellants : SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for Respondents : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - d .U THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI CE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII]DDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1393 of 2024 JUDGMENT: Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') appears for the appellants. Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner was in regular service as a driver under the appellalt Corporation. During periodical medical examination conducted by Medical Board at Tarnaka Hospital on 27.O3.2017, he was declared unfit for the post of driver in A1 category and also unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards of TSRTC due to ,,Seizure Disorder". The employer issued office order dated \ \ lO.O4.2Ol7 retiring him on medical grounds ald at the same time holding him eligible for additional monetary benefit or employment to dependent as per Regulation 6.{(4) of the r 2 TSRTC Ernployees (Service) Regulations' 1964 and the circular such as Circular No'PD-19/2015 dated 03'06 2015 at Page 36, rx'hich provides for alternative emplortment to the dependent of such an employee who has been declar-ed unfit for all category of posts in the Corporation or tbr receiving additional monetary benefit in terms of Regulation 64(5)(a) or (b) of TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations' 1964 as are applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner aDproached the writ Court being aggrieved by his retirement oir medical grounds' The learned writ Court was of the opinion l'hat medical condition of the petitioner can be classified' under thc locomotor' disorder. Therefore, the impugned order of retirement '*'as set aside. The respondents were directed to consider providing alternative light duty jobs to the petitioner in the respondent organization forthwith and the petitioner sha1l be entitled to all consequential benefits nc'tionally from the date of his discharge from duties till the date of his reinstatement. Appellant Corporation has preferred this appeal being aggrieved. I I 7z'// J

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also taken note of the provisions of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and FulI Participation) Act, l99S (hereinafter referred to as .the Act of 1995J u,hich applies to the case of the present petitioner as the order of his retirement was made on l O.O4.2O 1 7 before coming into lorce of the Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with effect from 19.O4.2O17.

4. The Act of 1995 defines "disability" under Section 2(i). Section 47 thereof provides restraint upon the establishment to dispense with or reduce in rank, an .employee who acquires a disability during his seryice. The first proviso thereof provides that the employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The second proviso further provides that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumera_ry post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superalnuation, whichever is earlier. Sub-Section (2) provides that no promotion shali t i d 4 r \.] be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability In the present case, the TSRTC Emplo1'ss5 (Service) Regulations, 1964 do provide tbr retirement oi an employee who is unfit to discharge the duties of the post held by him. Petitioner's disease i.e., "seizure Disorder" does not fal1 under any of the defined "disability" under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995. The learned vvrit Court treated it as a 'Locomotor' disability, which apparently is not applicable to the "Seizure Disorder". 'Locomotor' disability ,:art be said to one which aifects the locomotor functions or movement of such a person. Since the petitioner was declared unht for all categories, the circular prevalent in the Corporation provides for alternative employment or financiai be nefits in lieu thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that the medical certihcate issued by the Nizam's Institute of Me,dical Sciences (NIMS) on 06.lO.2O23 opines that he is ht to jc,in any kind of duty in TSRTC. According to the petitioner, the "Seizure Disorder" ls not one which disables the petitioner from holding any other kind of suitable post in the Corporation t { 5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 08.09.2016 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No. ll2O of 2015 and batch. The said decision has been set aside by the Hon,ble Supreme Court uide order dated 23.O2.2012 in Civil Appeal No.342g of

2017. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has a,lso held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 will be available to only those who satisfy the definition of the expression "Disability" under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995. This has been taken note of in another Writ Appeal No. 1635 of 2Ol7 decided by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana ald the State of Andhra Pradesh uide judgment dated 06.11.2O17 while dealing with the case of "Colour Blind Drivers". The facts of the above case are not identical to the present case as the petitioner has been found to suffer from "Seizure Disorder" and not only declared unfit for the job of Driver in A 1 category but lor all other posts. \ \ ,1 (r \*, -E

6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3428 of 2017, since the petitioner cannot br: categorized with suffering from any of the defined "disability" under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995, the benefit of Sect.ion 47 of the Act of 1995 cannot be extencled in his favorrr' Though petitioner has produced the medical certificate: of the year 2023 from a Medical Institute, but not only is such certilicate six years after the examination of thc petitioner by the Medicat Board, Tarnaka Hospital but at the sarte time, this Court without arry valid reasons cannot sit ovr:r and doubt the opinion of a Medical Board to hold that petitioner is fit for other posts despite suffering from a "seizure Disorder"' To cater to such situations, the employer has fr:rmed circular which provides for alternative employment to tJ:re dependent of such al employee or financial benefits as per the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, which has been offered to by the petitioner by the impugned order dated to.o4.2017.

7. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the opinion of the learned writ Court that petitioner's case would fall under \ 7 7 'Locomotor' disabiiity and can be considered for alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 1995. The applicable circular of the appellant Corporation provides adequate safeguard to cases of such employees who suffer those kind of diseases which render them unfit for not only performing the ,luties of a driver but any other post in the Corporation though such a disease may not be a defined 'disability' under Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995. We are, thus, of the opinion that the order of the learned writ Court cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside

8. The Writ Appeal IS accordingly, allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPY// -K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER . One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advo loPUCl One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advoca e [oPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 a To SA BS -{ HIGH COURT DATED:1 7 10912025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1393 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. --,'2' --'-' .ii- ! fAre' o 2 2 StP 2025 D;.1- - , 1-' '/ I