Sri Khusro Shah Khan vs Y Yadaiah
2025 Latest Caselaw 5536 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Khusro Shah Khan vs Y Yadaiah on 17 September, 2025

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


               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

appellant Corporation. During periodical medical

examination conducted by Medical Board at Tarnaka

Hospital on 21.03.2017, 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

10.04.2017 retiring him on medical grounds and at the same

time holding him eligible for additional monetary benefit or

employment to dependent as per Regulation 6A(4) of the

TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 and the

circular such as Circular No.PD-19/2015 dated 03.06.2015

at Page 36, which provides for alternative employment to the

dependent of such an employee who has been declared unfit

for all category of posts in the Corporation or for receiving

additional monetary benefit in terms of Regulation 6A(5)(a) or

(b) of TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 as are

applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the writ

Court being aggrieved by his retirement on medical grounds.

The learned writ Court was of the opinion that medical

condition of the petitioner can be classified under the

'locomotor' disorder. Therefore, the impugned order of

retirement was set aside. The respondents were directed to

consider providing alternative light duty jobs to the petitioner

in the respondent organization forthwith and the petitioner

shall be entitled to all consequential benefits notionally from

the date of his discharge from duties till the date of his

reinstatement. Appellant Corporation has preferred this

appeal being aggrieved.

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 Full

Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of

1995') which applies to the case of the present petitioner as

the order of his retirement was made on 10.04.2017 before

coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Act, 2016 with effect from 19.04.2017.

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 service. 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 supernumerary post until a suitable post is

available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever

is earlier. Sub-Section (2) provides that no promotion shall

be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.

In the present case, the TSRTC Employees (Service)

Regulations, 1964 do provide for retirement of an employee

who is unfit to discharge the duties of the post held by him.

Petitioner's disease i.e., "Seizure Disorder" does not fall

under any of the defined "disability" under Section 2(i) of the

Act of 1995. The learned writ Court treated it as a

'Locomotor' disability, which apparently is not applicable to

the "Seizure Disorder". 'Locomotor' disability can be said to

one which affects the locomotor functions or movement of

such a person. Since the petitioner was declared unfit for all

categories, the circular prevalent in the Corporation provides

for alternative employment or financial benefits in lieu

thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that the medical

certificate issued by the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences

(NIMS) on 06.10.2023 opines that he is fit to join any kind of

duty in TSRTC. According to the petitioner, the "Seizure

Disorder" is not one which disables the petitioner from

holding any other kind of suitable post in the Corporation.

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.1120 of 2015 and batch.

The said decision has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 23.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No.3428 of

2017. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has also 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 2017 decided by the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh vide judgment dated 06.11.2017 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 A1

category but for all other posts.

6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal

No.3428 of 2017, since the petitioner cannot be categorized

with suffering from any of the defined "disability" under

Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995, the benefit of Section 47 of the

Act of 1995 cannot be extended in his favour. Though

petitioner has produced the medical certificate of the year

2023 from a Medical Institute, but not only is such certificate

six years after the examination of the petitioner by the

Medical Board, Tarnaka Hospital but at the same time, this

Court without any valid reasons cannot sit over 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 framed circular

which provides for alternative employment to the dependent

of such an 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

10.04.2017.

7. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the opinion of

the learned writ Court that petitioner's case would fall under

'Locomotor' disability 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 duties 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

closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

Date: 17.09.2025 KL