Telangana High Court
Md.Nizamuddin, Nizamabad Dist vs A.P.S.R.T.C, Nizamabad Dist And 2 ... on 6 May, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.3032 of 2008
DATED: 06TH MAY, 2026
Between:
Md.Nizamuddin ...Petitioner
AND
APSRTC, Reptd. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad and two others
...Respondents
O R D E R:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings No. L1/785(24)/07-RM dated 18.01.2007, whereby the claim of the petitioner for providing alternative employment was rejected, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to provide suitable alternative employment in the Corporation. Subsequently, the petitioner amended the prayer seeking to declare the proceedings No. L1/785(24)/07.RM;NZB dated 27.02.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, insofar as the respondents failed to fix the petitioner's pay in the scale applicable to the post of Conductor by protecting the last drawn basic pay, and further failed to treat the out-of-service 2 period from 05.07.2007 (the date on which the petitioner was declared unfit for the original post) till the petitioner was taken back into service as Shramik in March 2009 as duty period with wages, in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to fix his pay in the Conductor scale by protecting the last drawn basic pay, to treat the out-of-service period from 05.07.2007 as duty with full wages, and to grant increments and all other consequential benefits.
02. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G. Shiva Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially joined the services of the respondent-Corporation as a Conductor on 03.04.1989, and his services were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.08.1992. While discharging his duties on 10.04.2005 at Bheemgal Depot, the petitioner collapsed 3 due to stress and strain and suffered a paralytic stroke affecting the right side of his body. Immediately thereafter, the Depot Manager addressed a letter dated 10.04.2005 to the Superintendent, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, requesting that necessary medical treatment be provided to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for two days at the said hospital and was subsequently referred to Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Panjagutta, Hyderabad, on 12.04.2005, where he remained under inpatient treatment until 20.04.2005.
04. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was again referred to the said hospital in April 2006, a medical certificate dated 22.04.2006 was issued, certifying that the petitioner required continuous treatment and physiotherapy, and that improvement in his condition might be expected within a period of one year. While the petitioner was undergoing treatment and rest, the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 05.06.2007 directing him to appear for a medical examination, failing which his period of sick leave would not be sanctioned. In compliance therewith, the petitioner reported to the hospital on 05.07.2007, whereupon the medical 4 authorities declared him unfit to discharge the duties of a Conductor.
05. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent prematurely retired the petitioner from service with effect from 31.07.2007. The petitioner, asserting his entitlement, requested the respondents to provide him with alternative employment commensurate with his medical condition. However, the respondents informed him that no provision existed under the relevant regulations for extending alternative employment to Conductors. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17658 of 2007, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for alternative employment in accordance with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. Notwithstanding the said direction, the 2nd respondent, by way of the impugned proceedings, rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he was not eligible for any alternative post. Challenging the said rejection, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide suitable alternative employment to the petitioner.
06. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, by filing a counter affidavit, submitted that upon 5 medical examination, the petitioner was declared unfit for the post of Conductor. It is contended that, in view of his prolonged illness and resultant incapacity, the petitioner was medically unfit not only for the post of Conductor but also for holding any other post, as he was unable to discharge any duties. Consequently, he was retired from service on medical grounds. It is further submitted that, in such circumstances, the question of providing alternative employment does not arise. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
07. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it is evident that the petitioner, who was appointed as a Conductor on 03.04.1989 and regularized on 01.08.1992, suffered a paralytic stroke while on duty on 10.04.2005 and underwent treatment at APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, and thereafter at NIMS, Hyderabad. On being medically examined on 05.07.2007, he was declared unfit for the post of Conductor and was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 31.07.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No.17658 of 2007, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider his case for alternative employment under Section 47 of the Persons with 6 Disabilities Act, 1995. However, his claim was rejected on the ground of ineligibility for any post, which is now under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The respondents contend that the petitioner is medically unfit to discharge duties in any post and, therefore, not entitled to alternative employment.
08. On analyzing the entire facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner suffered disability during the course of employment and that there is no allegation of misconduct or fault attributable to him and that his premature retirement was solely on medical grounds. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which mandates that no employee who acquires a disability during service shall be dispensed with or reduced in rank, and that such employee shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.
09. In the present case, this Court had already, by way of interim order dated 22.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.3963 of 2008, directed the respondents to provide alternative employment to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as a Shramik and posted at Kamareddy Depot. It is also an admitted 7 position that the petitioner accepted the said post and has been discharging his duties. Once the respondents themselves have provided alternative employment and the petitioner is continuing in service, the earlier stand of the respondents that the petitioner is unfit for any post holds no water. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is unfit to discharge duties as a Shramik.
10. Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the prayer challenging the proceedings dated 27.02.2009 relating to non-protection of his last drawn pay and denial of attendant benefits. This Court, by order dated 01.12.2010, allowed the said amendment, recording that the respondents did not oppose the same. Significantly, no additional counter affidavit has been filed controverting the amended relief.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner acquired disability during service. The respondents have already accommodated him in an alternative post. Denial of pay protection and consequential benefits is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 47 of the Act. The action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the 8 petitioner initially, and thereafter in not extending the benefit of pay protection and continuity of service, is violative of Section 47 of the Act. The said provision casts a statutory obligation on the employer to protect the service conditions of an employee acquiring disability during service. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 18.01.2007 and 27.02.2009 are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is consequently entitled to all consequential reliefs.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings No. L1/785(24)/07-RM dated 18.01.2007 and proceedings No. L1/785(24)/07.RM;NZB dated 27.02.2009 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's appointment as Shramik as alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and shall fix the petitioner's pay by protecting his last drawn basic pay in the scale applicable to the post of Conductor. The period from 05.07.2007 (the date on which the petitioner was declared unfit) till the date of his rejoining as Shramik shall be treated as on duty for the purpose of continuity of service, increments, and other 9 consequential benefits. The respondents shall compute and pay all such consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: .05.2026
Ksk/khrm
10
11
12
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
PD
ORDER
IN
WRIT PETITION No.3032 of 2008
Date: .05.2026
Ksk/khrm