ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner from service with retrospective effect from 19.01.2019 vide Proc.No.E2/786(01)/2019.MP., dated 21.01.2019, without providing alternative suitable employment and not considering petitioner’s representation dated 23.11.2020, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri Mr.Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as driver in the month of April, 2010, after undergoing due process of selection in Hyderabad Region. Subsequently, his services were regularized w.e.f.01.09.2013 and accordingly he has been working continuously till he was made to retire from service prematurely w.e.f.19.01.2019 vide impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019 wherein the petitioner was declared as unfit for any post in the Corporation due to disability sustained after entering into the Corporation, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that while the petitioner was working in third respondent Depot, he sustained a fracture injury while travelling on a motor bike on 30.03.2016 at about 2230 hours after completion of his duties on that day. Initially, the petitioner was treated at NIMS hospital and the said hospital has estimated the cost of treatment as Rs.60,000/-, which was also informed to third respondent vide letter dated 12.04.2016. Accordingly, he has taken treatment at R- 2 hospital. Since he was not completely recovered at R.2 Hospital, the said hospital has referred him to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where the petitioner has incurred Rs.60,000/- towards treatment. After the treatment, NIMS Hospital, has issued Medical Certificate dated 11.04.2018 advising the Management of respondent Corporation that he may be allotted desk duties or other than driver duties. Accordingly, for some period, his services were extracted on other duties i.e. other than driver duties, out of designation basis, through letter dated 04.11.2017 as issued by the Chief Personnel Manager to Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region. While so, the RTC Dispensary, Musheerabad, also examined the petitioner on 08.06.2018 wherein he was declared unfit for the post of driver i.e. A.1 category due to right leg fracture. While so, the RTC Dispensary, Musheerabad, also examined the petitioner on 08.06.2018 wherein he was declared unfit for the post of driver i.e. A.1 category due to right leg fracture. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 on 13.06.2018 with a request to send him to Medical Board for examination on medical appeal wherein he was examined on 21.11.2018 and declared unfit for the post of driver, against which, he was examined by the Medical Board on 08.01.2018 on the representation of third respondent letter dated 27.11.2018 and the said Board has declared him medically unfit for the post of driver and other alternative posts without any valid reason. Therefore, the action of the Board in declaring the petitioner as unfit for all other alternative posts is without any basis and valid reasons and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood and bread to his family members apart from violation of Section 20 (4) of the Right of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short ‘Act of 2016’). Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 23.11.2020 requesting for re-medical examination for job as he has no source of income for his family and he is hardly having age of 41 years and still having 19 years of service for his actual retirement. Hence, retiring the petitioner from service at younger age prematurely amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has studied upto 10 th Class and is suitable to the post of Shramik and Record Keeper and any other suitable job. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1789/2000 and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana , AIR 1995 SC 519 . 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while admitting the fact that the services of the petitioner was engaged as contract driver on 26.02.2010 and his services were regularized from 01.09.2015 at Mehadipatnam Depot. Further, the petitioner was sent for periodical medical examination to R.1 Organization, Mehadipatnam Dispensary, wherein the petitioner was found unfit for A.1 Category driver due to “Pedaloedeue RT Leg” vide MC No.0/148439, dated 02.11.2018. Further, the petitioner was sent for periodical medical examination to R.1 Organization, Mehadipatnam Dispensary, wherein the petitioner was found unfit for A.1 Category driver due to “Pedaloedeue RT Leg” vide MC No.0/148439, dated 02.11.2018. It is further submitted that on considering the representation of the petitioner, he was directed for re-medical examination for appeal to R.2 Hospital where he was found unfit for A.1 Category (Driver) due to “Painful RT Leg ILN- INSITU” on 08.01.2019 and was declared unfit for the post of Driver (A.1 category) and also unfit for all other categories as per the Medical Standards of first respondent Organization. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.3 vide Proceedings No.E2/786(01)/2019.MP, dated 21.01.2019, retiring the petitioner on medical grounds. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been declared unfit for the post of driver by duly constituted Medical Board of the Corporation and as per the medical standards of the Corporation. Further, the Medical Board of the Corporation is appropriate authority to certify the medical fitness of an employee and the opinion of the said Board shall be final. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act of 2016 do not apply to the respondent Corporation as the Corporation was exempted from the provisions of the said Act by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II), dated 24.02.2018. Hence, the provision of Section 20 of the Act of 2016 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot be provided any alternate employment as claimed by him. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529/2017 & batch, dated 23.02.2017, the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 2016 is available to only those who are governed by the disabilities specified in Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2016. Since the petitioner has been declared medically unfit for the post of driver and retired from service, he can opt either for additional monetary fund in terms of Regulation 6A(5) of TGRTC Employees (Service) Regulations or employment to any of his dependants as per eligibility. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has also been placed on Writ Appeal No.380 of 2017 & batch dated 05.06.2017 and Writ Appeal No.196 of 2017 & batch dated 25.03.2022. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has also been placed on Writ Appeal No.380 of 2017 & batch dated 05.06.2017 and Writ Appeal No.196 of 2017 & batch dated 25.03.2022. 5) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the co-employee of the petitioner by name M.Srinivas Rao (Emp.No.825871), who is similarly situated to that of the petitioner, was also declared unfit due to Axonal Neupathy based on the medical report given by the Medical Committee and he was given alternative employment as Shramik and posted to Bhadrachalam Depot as Shramik vide Office Order of the Depot Manager, Bhadrachalam, dated 17.12.2018. Likewise, one Mr.K.Ramchander, driver (Emp.No.208173), Baskar, driver (Emp.No.221668), A.L. Khan, driver (Emp.No.219548), V. Venkatesham, driver (Emp.No.220183), and Md. Ismail, driver, (Emp.No.218539), who were also declared as medically unfit on medical grounds, were given the alternative posts of Shramik in their respective Depots whereas the petitioner was not extended the said benefit. Therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to discrimination, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment on par with similarly situated persons. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 7) As seen from the record, admittedly, while the petitioner was working as driver, he was sent for periodical medical examination to respondent No.1 Musheerabad Dispensary wherein he was found unfit for the post of A.1 category driver due to PEDALOEDEUE RIGHT LEG IMPLANTS SITU” vide M.C.No.0/14849, dated 02.11.2018. Further, on considering the appeal of the petitioner, he was directed for re-medical examination to R.2 hospital wherein also he was found declared unfit for the post of A.1 category driver due to “Painful Right Leg ILN INSITU” on 08.01.2019 and also declared unfit for all other categories as per the medical standards of the respondent Corporation. Consequently, vide proceedings Rc.No.E2/786 (01)/ 2019, dated 21.01.2019, respondent No.3 retired the petitioner on medical grounds w.e.f.19.01.2019 in terms of Regulation 6 (A) (5) (b) of TSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1964. Consequently, vide proceedings Rc.No.E2/786 (01)/ 2019, dated 21.01.2019, respondent No.3 retired the petitioner on medical grounds w.e.f.19.01.2019 in terms of Regulation 6 (A) (5) (b) of TSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1964. 8) Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Act of 2016 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the said reliance is misconceived as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(i) which stipulates disability covered under the Act of 2016. 9) Here, it is pertinent to state that while dealing with the provisions of Act of 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 batch, dated 23.02.2017, has held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 2016 is available to the persons, who suffered disability in terms of Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2016. 10) Following the above referred judgment dated 23.02.2017, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.380 of 2017 & batch, has held as under: “Following the order of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No3529 of 2017 and batch dated 23.02.2017, these Writ Appeals are also disposed of holding that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act shall be available only to those who are covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act; it is open to the appellant-Corporation to take a decision, on individual grievances of the respondent-writ petitioners, with utmost expedition preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; and the respondent-writ petitioners are at liberty thereafter to avail their remedies in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.” 11) From the above, it is clear that the benefit of the Act of 2016 is available only to those who are covered by the disabilities specified in Section 2(i) of the Act. 12) Even otherwise, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.02.2019, the Government of Telangana had exempted the respondent Corporation from the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2016. Relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as under: “8. 12) Even otherwise, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.02.2019, the Government of Telangana had exempted the respondent Corporation from the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 2016. Relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as under: “8. Government after careful examination of the entire matter have decided to accept the recommendation of the inter Departmental Committee and hereby order to exempt Telangana State Road Transport Corporation from the provisions of Section 20 of the “Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016” in respect of Drivers, Conductors and Mechanics (including Artisans), invoking the powers conferred on the State Government, under the proviso to Section 20 (1), subject to the following conditions: 1. TSRTC should continue to extend all the benefits i.e. Additional Monetary Benefit or compassionate appointment in case of retirements on medical invalidation. 2. TSRTC should subject its employees to three levels of medical scrutiny before retiring them on medical invalidation.” 13) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent-Corporation is exempted from the provisions of Act of 2016. Hence, the petitioner is restrained from seeking any relief from the respondent-Corporation under the provisions of Act of 2016. 14) As regards discrimination urged by the petitioner is concerned, the record discloses that as Mr. M.Srinivas Rao, driver (Emp.No.) was declared unfit only for the post of A.1 category driver, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared or equated with that of said M.Srinivas Rao, as the the petitioner was declared unfit for the post of A.1 category driver as well as all other posts. Therefore, the said ground is unavailable to the petitioner. 15) However, as congregated from the record, vide proceedings Rc.E2/813(1)/2017-MP, dated 27.07.2017, the Depot Manager, Mehadipatnam Depot, has advised the Assistant Manager (T), Mehadipatnam Depot, to utilize the services of the petitioner on out of designation duties like controller duty at Mehdipatnam Rythu Bazar point for a period of three months. Thereafter, the Chief Personnel Manager vide proceedings No.GC3/255(21)/2017- PO(T&W), dated 04.11.2017, had accorded permission to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, to provide out of designation duties for a further period of three months to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Chief Personnel Manager vide proceedings No.GC3/255(21)/2017- PO(T&W), dated 04.11.2017, had accorded permission to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, to provide out of designation duties for a further period of three months to the petitioner. 16) From the above two proceedings, it is thus clear that after the petitioner met with accident on 30.03.2016, his services were utilized by the Corporation by allotting him out of designation duties for a considerable period and having done so, what prevented the respondent authorities in further continuing to allot the petitioner out of designation duties is not forthcoming from the record. 17) That apart, in the initial medical examination conducted by Musheerabad Dispensary, the petitioner was found and declared unfit only for the post of A.1 category (driver) vide MC No.0/148439, dated 02.11.2018, whereas in the subsequent medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, the petitioner was declared unfit for the post of Driver A.1 category as well as unfit for all other alternate categories, though it is evident from the record that after the accident the petitioner had discharged other than designated duties for a period of six months but the reasons for declaring the petitioner as unfit for all other posts are not forthcoming, more particularly, when the doctors of Musheerabad Dispensary have declared the petitioner unfit only for the post of driver (A.1 category). 18) That apart, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.02.2018, the Government while granting exemption to the respondent Corporation from the provision of Section 20 of the Act of 2016, has imposed condition at clause 8(2) thereof stating that employee shall be subjected to three levels of medical scrutiny before retiring them on medical invalidation. In the case on hand, the material on record reveals only two levels of medical scrutiny of the petitioner i.e. one at Mehedipatnam Dispensary and another by the Medical board. 19) In view of the above discrepancies and considering the fact that the petitioner is only 43 years old, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for a detailed medical examination once again. 20) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to send the petitioner for detailed medical examination for ascertaining his fitness and suitability for any other alternate post and take appropriate decision in the matter, without reference to the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019. 20) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to send the petitioner for detailed medical examination for ascertaining his fitness and suitability for any other alternate post and take appropriate decision in the matter, without reference to the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2019. As the petitioner is out of service since 2019, the respondents are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.