ORDER : Harinath. N, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the denial of wages, non-grant of continuity of service, and failure to protect the pay of the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.01.2008, whereby the respondent authority provided alternative appointment to the petitioner and posted him as Shramik at Nandikottukur Depot. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent as a Conductor on 19.03.1985 and his services were regularized on 01.07.1986. It is further submitted that the petitioner was removed from service on account of charges relating to cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and, having failed to succeed in his efforts for reinstatement, filed W.P.No.11837 of 1989 before this Court. This Court modified the order of removal and granted reinstatement into service without continuity of service and without back wages, appointing the petitioner afresh as a Conductor. 3. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the petitioner reported for duty with the respondent Corporation on 01.10.1997 and was reinstated as a fresh Conductor Grade-II. The petitioner was sent for medical examination on 15.10.1997 to the APSRTC Dispensary, Nandyal, and was declared medically unfit for the post of Conductor in A-2 category. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and, accordingly, the petitioner was made to retire from service with effect from 28.04.1998. 4. The petitioner subsequently filed an application before the Commissioner for Disabled Welfare and the State Commissioner under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The competent authority directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to provide him with a suitable job under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1955. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner joined duty in pursuance of the proceedings dated 11.01.2008 as a Shramik at Nandikottukur Depot. The petitioner sought for payment of salary for the period during which he was medically unfit and for the period during which he was not provided employment, and also sought that such period be treated as continuity of service for all other service benefits. The petitioner claims that the respondents have, so far, not considered the case of the petitioner, though he is entitled to such benefits. The petitioner claims that the respondents have, so far, not considered the case of the petitioner, though he is entitled to such benefits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: a) In APSRTC, Muesheerabad, Hyderabad and others vs. K.Moses , 2012(2) ALD 772 (DB) , the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the employer is bound to provide an alternate employment and that it is not necessary for an employee to solicit or explore all avenues/opportunities for securing alternate employment. b) In Ch. S. Rajesewara Rao vs. Govt., of A.P., APSRTC, Regional Manager, Vijayawada, Divisional Manager; Depot Manager , 2022 6 ALT 269 , the learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various judgments, directed the respondents therein to pay salary for the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service and to grant increments at par with other employees of the Corporation in the post of Conductor. c) In Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and other , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1048 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Persons with Disabilities Act is a beneficial and remedial legislation and that it must not be diluted by narrow interpretation. It was further held that the protections under the Act must be extended purposively to protect the livelihood, dignity and continuity of service of employees who acquire disabilities during employment. d) In K.A.H.D.V.Prasad, S/o. K.Kanaka Ratna Samba Siva Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others , 2024 LawSuit(AP) 1245 , this Court held that blindness suffered by the writ petitioner therein could not result inloss of employment and that the respondent Corporation was bound to employ him, setting aside the order of retirement. 7. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent filed a detailed counter and submitted that the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 can be extended only in respect of disabilities defined under Section 2(i) of the Act. It is submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner does not fall within any of the said definitions and, therefore, cannot, as a matter of right, seek relief from this Court. It is submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner does not fall within any of the said definitions and, therefore, cannot, as a matter of right, seek relief from this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.01.2008 after a lapse of more than five years and that the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in not seeking relief at the appropriate time disentitle him to any relief. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the proceedings dated 11.01.2008. On the grounds of delay and latches, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents further placed reliance on the following judgments: a) In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director and others vs. B.S.Reddy , SLP (C) No.32016 of 2016 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act would be available only to those persons who are covered under Section 2(i) of the Act. b) In the common judgment of the High Court of Telangana in W.A.Nos.380, 420, 496, 499, 500, 503, 528, 540, 615 and 641 of 2017, the Division Bench, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the benefits under Section 47 of the Act shall be available to those covered by the disabilities specified under Section 2(i) of the Act and left it open to the respondent Corporation to take a decision on the individual grievances of the writ petitioners. It was further held that it is for the Medical Board to determine entitlement under the Act. 9. Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel of the respondent and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was directed to be reappointed as a Conductor, and the respondents issued appropriate proceedings on 01.10.1997. However, on account of the Medical Board rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Conductor, his services were terminated with effect from 28.04.1998. 11. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the Medical Officer, Nandyal, declared that the petitioner was unfit for A-2 category due to defective distant vision and issued a medical certificate dated 29.10.1997. The petitioner approached various authorities and was thereafter retired with effect from11.01.2008. 12. The petitioner was diagnosed with defective distant vision. 11. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the Medical Officer, Nandyal, declared that the petitioner was unfit for A-2 category due to defective distant vision and issued a medical certificate dated 29.10.1997. The petitioner approached various authorities and was thereafter retired with effect from11.01.2008. 12. The petitioner was diagnosed with defective distant vision. Section2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, defines disability as: (i) blindness, (ii) low vision, (iii) leprosy- cured, (iv) hearing impairment, (v) locomotor disability, (vi) mental retardation, and (vii) mental illness. The said medical condition does not find place as a disability under the Act. The petitioner has also not filed any document that would bring his case within the ambit of disability as defined under the Act. 13. There is no justification in filing the present writ petition at a belated stage. The proceedings of 2008 are sought to be challenged after a lapse of five years. This Court finds no justification for maintaining the writ petition with such a delay. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as well. 14. On these considerations, the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.