ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to call for records from the respondents and issue appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.E2/469(2)/2018-WL-2 dated 14.11.2018 received on 28.11.2018 retiring me from the service on Medical Grounds with retrospective effect i.e., 07.08.2018 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, victimization, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant consequential benefits” 2. Heard Mrs. K.V.Vani, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Mr. B.Krishna Karthik, learned counsel representing Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents. 3. Brief facts: Petitioner was appointed as Driver in respondent Corporation on 20.04.2005 on daily wage basis and his services were regularized with effect from 14.05.2015. Petitioner was subjected to periodical medical examination and the Medical Officer, TSRTC Dispensary, Warangal, examined the petitioner and declared him unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to colour blindness vide M.C.No.019175 dated 18.05.2018. Petitioner preferred an appeal and was directed to appear before the Medical Committee, Tarnaka Hospital, Hyderabad. Petitioner was examined on 30.05.2018 by Medical Committee and was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to progressive retinal disease with field defects. Petitioner was re-examined by Medical Board and vide letter dated 07.08.2018, Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to “colour blindness & progressive retinal disease” as per the medical standards of TSRTC. It was further stated in the letter that petitioner is not eligible for alternative employment in terms of circular dated 14.05.2015 and is eligible for additional monetary benefit upon retirement on medical grounds. Vide order dated 14.11.2018, petitioner was made to retire from service on medical grounds with effect from 07.08.2018. The order dated 14.11.2018 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 2005 and his services were regularized in the year 2015. It is further submitted that on 18.05.2018, petitioner was subjected to medical examination and in the medical examination, it was declared by Medical Officer that petitioner was unfit for service in class A1 category due to colour blindness. It is further submitted that on 18.05.2018, petitioner was subjected to medical examination and in the medical examination, it was declared by Medical Officer that petitioner was unfit for service in class A1 category due to colour blindness. It is also submitted that on an appeal, petitioner was examined by Medical Committee on 30.05.2018 and he was declared as unfit for A1 category due to progressive retinal disease with field defects. It is submitted that petitioner was re-examined on 07.08.2018 and he was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to “Colour Blindness & Progressive Retinal Disease.” 4.1 It is submitted that by order dated 14.11.2018, petitioner was made to retire from service on medical grounds from 07.08.2018 and that petitioner could not have been made to retire from a retrospective date and such retirement from retrospective date is not valid in the eye of law. It is further submitted that petitioner is entitled for alternative employment to the post of Shramik or Record Tracer as he had studied up to 10th class and not providing alternative job is contrary to the provisions of Section 47(1) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’). It is also submitted that as per Section 20 of the Act 2016, there can be no discrimination in employment and if there is no possibility of adjustment of the employee against any post, he can be kept on a superannuation post, until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 4.2 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per circular dated 16.08.1976, while providing an alternative job, the time scale and pay drawn by Driver at the time of disqualification would be protected. It is urged that petitioner be provided alternative employment and that the order of respondent Corporation retiring the petitioner with retrospective effect is illegal and contrary to law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation supported the order dated 14.11.2018 and submitted that petitioner was made to retire from service with effect from 07.08.2018 on the basis of medical report wherein Medical Board concluded about the fitness of the petitioner. It is further submitted petitioner was subjected to medical examination on 18.05.2018 and was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to colour blindness. It is further submitted petitioner was subjected to medical examination on 18.05.2018 and was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to colour blindness. On an appeal preferred by petitioner, Medical Committee examined the petitioner and held that petitioner was suffering from progressive retinal disease with field defects and was unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category. It is also submitted that a review application was submitted by petitioner and upon such review application, petitioner was re-examined by Medical Board on 07.08.2018 and Medical Board found the petitioner unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category as per the medical standards of TSRTC due to “colour blindness & progressive retinal disease”. It is contended that petitioner is not eligible for alternative employment in terms of circular dated 14.05.2015 and is eligible for additional monetary benefit upon retirement on medical grounds. It is further contended that there is no infirmity in the order dated 14.11.2018, as petitioner was declared unfit on 07.08.2018. 6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. Petitioner was appointed as Driver in respondent Corporation in the year 2005 on daily wage basis and his services were regularized with effect from 14.05.2015. Petitioner was subjected to periodical medical examination, on 18.05.2018, after the medical examination, he was declared unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category vide M.C.No.019175. Petitioner preferred an appeal and a review application, he was again subjected to medical examination and the Medical Board vide letter dated 07.08.2018 informed the Depot Manager, Warangal, that petitioner was found unfit for the post of Driver in A1 category due to “colour blindness & progressive retinal disease”. It was further stated in the letter that petitioner was not eligible for alternative employment in terms of circular No.PD-15/2015, dated 14.05.2015 and was eligible for additional monetary benefit on retirement on medical grounds. 8. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the only earning member in the family, has a surviving mother, wife and two school going children and that his family is dependent on him and there is no other source of income. It is further submitted that petitioner’s wife has passed Intermediate and is eligible for alternative employment as per circular No.PD-19/2015, dated 03.06.2015. 9. This Court queried respondent Corporation’s Standing Counsel as to the feasibility of alternative employment. It is further submitted that petitioner’s wife has passed Intermediate and is eligible for alternative employment as per circular No.PD-19/2015, dated 03.06.2015. 9. This Court queried respondent Corporation’s Standing Counsel as to the feasibility of alternative employment. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that circular dated 03.06.2015, was issued subsequent to circular dated 14.05.2015 and that if a representation is made, the same would be considered. Relevant clauses of circular dated 03.06.2015 are as follows: “3. The medically unfit employees, on preferring employment to their spouse or child, are not eligible either for alternative employment to themselves or for receiving Additional Monetary Benefit under Reg. 6A (5) (a) or (b) of APSRTC Employees' (Service) Regulations, 1964 as applicable in each case. 4. The employment to the spouse or child of the employees retired on medical grounds may be considered only when the medically unfit employee has a left over service of at least 5 years from the date of retirement on medical grounds till the date attaining the age of superannuation. 5. The medically unfit employees who retired from service on medical grounds and availed Additional Monetary Benefit under Regulation 6A(5) (a) or (b) of APSRTC Employees' (Service) Regulations, 1964 are not eligible to claim. for alternative employment to themselves or to their spouse or child; even if they come forward to repay the Additional Monetary Benefit they received. 6. The medically unfit employees, who have already accepted the alternative employment to themselves prior to the promulgation of this scheme, are also eligible to claim employment to their spouse or child in cancellation of the current alternate appointment for the current alternate post held as a onetime measure, subject to fulfilling conditions 3 and 4 stipulated above. 7. Applications for appointment of the spouse or child may be entertained within a period of five years from the date of retirement of employees on medical grounds, so as to enable such applicants to acquire the required eligibility.” 10. Perusal of the clauses indicate that a family member i.e., either spouse or child, if found eligible, can be provided an alternative employment, if additional monetary benefit is not received, on an application made within five years from the date of retirement of employee on medical grounds. 11. Perusal of the clauses indicate that a family member i.e., either spouse or child, if found eligible, can be provided an alternative employment, if additional monetary benefit is not received, on an application made within five years from the date of retirement of employee on medical grounds. 11. On a further query of this Court, learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submitted that no family member of petitioner made any application for receiving additional monetary benefit. It was further submitted that no application was made for alternative employment. It is also stated that by letter dated 07.08.2018, it was informed that petitioner was not eligible for alternative employment and was eligible for only additional monetary benefit. 12. In the present case, petitioner has neither received any additional monetary benefit nor his spouse or child has made application for alternative employment. It was submitted that petitioner was under the impression that his spouse or child was not eligible for alternative employment as per circular dated 14.05.2015. As per the circular dated 03.06.2015, either spouse or child of employee, who was made to retire on the ground of being medically unfit, is entitled for alternative employment to the post of Conductor-II/Driver-II/RTC Constable/ Shramik subject to fulfilling the educational qualifications, age and other requirements as per the APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. This Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner’s wife, who completed her Intermediate (pursuing her degree), be permitted to make a representation to respondent authorities for considering her candidature for employment in a suitable post as per the Scheme envisaged in circular dated 03.06.2015. Petitioner’s wife shall make a representation within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order seeking alternative employment. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that one of the clauses in circular dated 03.06.2015 specifies that an application has to be made within a period of five years from the date of retirement of employee on medical grounds. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that one of the clauses in circular dated 03.06.2015 specifies that an application has to be made within a period of five years from the date of retirement of employee on medical grounds. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., as no representation was made earlier due to lack of knowledge by the family members and as they also claim to have not received additional monetary benefit, the respondent authorities shall consider the representation of petitioner’s wife and pass orders within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of such representation. 14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.