Petitioner challenged his retirement on medical grounds, claiming violation of the Persons with Disabilities Act. Court found no evidence of 40% disability required for protection. Petition dismissed.
Direction to extend monetary benefits to which petitioner is entitled under Regulation 6-A of the Regulations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 12847 of 1999
Dated: 17.03.2010
Between:
K.Ramachandra Reddy And
… Petitioner
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and 2 others.
… Respondents
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 12847 of 1999
O R D E R :
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds without providing an alternative job as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is explained that since the petitioner was unfit for A-1 category, he was retired on medical grounds as per Regulation 6-A of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Service Regulations, which provides for retirement due to failure to conform to the requisite standards of physical fitness.
So far as the petitioner’s claim for alternative employment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which came into force with effect from 07.02.1996, it is stated that there was neither a plea nor any proof that the petitioner was suffering from not less than 40% disability so as to claim the protection under the said Act.
Having heard both parties and having perused the material available on record, particularly in view of the stand taken by the Corporation which stood un-controverted, I do not find any justifiable ground to issue the Mandamus as prayed for.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction
to the Corporation to extend all the monetary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to under Regulation 6-A of the Regulations, if not already paid. No costs.
______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 17.03.2010 KLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation was required to provide alternative employment to the petitioner retired on medical grounds under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Ramachandra Reddy
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
