Disposed¶45

B. Balaji Singh, v. The Regional Manager

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2026WP/7556/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC conductor medical unfitness alternative employment Section 47 Persons with Disabilities Act writ mandamus disposed; medical retirement MTD 430 A2 category M.C.No.256032; gratuity PF SBTF pending release; G.O.Ms.No.58 Transport Roads and Buildings additional monetary benefit; W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch; fresh representation three weeks three months; Section 151 CPC IA; Justice V. Sujatha; Andhra Pradesh High Court Amaravati; W.P.No.7556 of 2018; Kurnool Atmakur depot; B/L Perennial Neuropathy Cervical Spondylosis.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation within three (3) weeks; respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules in force, preferably within three (3) months; no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition stand closed.

B. Balaji Singh, Vs The Regional Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not considering the petitioner's case for alternative appointment to any suitable post on medical grounds is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and whether the respondents should provide alternative employment under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act and in terms of orders in W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The 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 the order.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of the fresh representation, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with 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 the order.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226), High Court of A.P. at Amaravati (V. Sujatha, J.), disposed 13.07.2026 — APSRTC conductor (appointed 01.07.1989, regularized 01.07.1991) declared medically unfit for conductor post (B/L personal Perennial Neuropathy; cervical spondylosis with tremors; unfit for A2 category vide M.C.No.256032 dt. 02.09.2016), relieved 14.10.2016 and permitted medical retirement 15.09.2016; corporation paid PF Rs.2,17,632/-, gratuity (80%) Rs.3,86,616/- and SBTF Rs.49,362/, with 20% gratuity (Rs.96,654/-) and final salary settlement (Rs.20,851/-) pending. Petitioner sought alternative employment under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act and employment for his son, in terms of orders in W.A.No.380/2017 and Batch dt. 5.6.2017, and G.O.Ms.No.58 monetary benefits. Standing Counsel undertook to consider a fresh representation; Court disposed the petition directing petitioner to submit a fresh representation within 3 weeks and respondents to pass appropriate orders per rules in force preferably within 3 months; no costs; MPs closed. Entitlement questions themselves not adjudicated.

¶1

[3333]

¶2

APHC010171152018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7556/2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

B. BALAJI SINGH,, S/O. B.HARI NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. 15-77, KISHAN SINGH STREET, ATMAKUR (MANDAL), KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ATMAKUR BUS DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

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

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P VIJAYA KUMARI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶25

The Court made the following:

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:

¶31

“…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…”

¶32

The petitioner was appointed as conductor on 01.07.1989 in the 1^st respondent’s corporation and was transferred to the depot of the 2^nd 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.

¶33

While the matter stood thus, as the petitioner was falling sick frequently, he was sent to medical examination by the 2^nd 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

¶34

¶35

VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018

¶36

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.

¶37

The 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent permitted

¶38

¶39

VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018

¶40

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.

¶41

Heard Mrs. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.

¶42

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.

¶43

¶44

VS,J W.P.No.7556 of 2018

¶45

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.

¶46

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶47

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶48

13.07.2026 Gss

B. Balaji Singh, v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Balaji Singh, v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axis Finance Ltd., Vs Sigilipelli Venkaiaramana

Dhulipalla Venkata Sundeep Vs Dhulipalla Talasila Yamini Satya

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Dandlamudi Venkateswar Rao

Chandra Phani Shankar Alla Vs The H.S.B.C. Electronic Data Processing India Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. D. Nageswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Eswara Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport