IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 07.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. NO. 30090 of 2003 . . . . . . . K. Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai  600 002. ...Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus caling for the Proceedings. No.00216/pa.Pi(Nir)6/Ma.Po.Ka/2001 dt. 05.04.2003 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back-wages and other attendant benefits by providing alternative light duty. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ezhilan For Respondent : Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan O R D E R The writ petition has been filed by a disabled employee. The petitioner in this case joined the services of the transport corporation as a driver on 10.1.1996 and was regularised by an order dated 28.12.1998. On 6.10.1998, while he was on wheels of the bus, a mini lorry coming from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the bus and in that accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to the right leg. He was treated in various hospitals from time to time. However, due to the nature of injuries, he could not work as a driver as before. The petitioner submitted a report to the management to provide an alternate employment in his application dated 23.4.2001. The respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to appear before the medical board and the medical board conducted an examination on 2.9.2002 and a report was submitted on 13.11.2002 stating that the petitioner is not a fit person to work as a driver. The board however recommended alternate employment. 2. Consequent to the medical board's report, a memo dated 11.12.2002 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. He submitted his explanation dated 25.12.2002 and implored upon the respondent to provide alternate employment. Without considering the provision of law that is applicable to a disabled persons, the respondent issued proceedings No.00216/gg(eph;)6/khnghf/2001 dated 5.4.2003 discharging the petitioner from service with effect from 17.4.2003. Consequent to this order, the petitioner made several representations inviting the attention of the respondent to G.O.Ms.No.746 (Transport Department), dated 2.7.1981 which provides for alternate employment in a case where the employee is found to be medically unfit. Since the representations of the petitioner went unheard, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 20.10.2003 and the respondent has been served and appeared through counsel. But no counter has been filed so far. In this case, it is not in dispute that the medical board found the petitioner as not a fit person to perform the duty as a driver but recommended for providing alternate employment. The petitioner is entitled to such benefits as provided in The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection and rights and full participation) Act 1995 (for short 'the Act'). Several decisions of Courts including the Apex Court emphasize in no uncertain terms, the right to alternate employment for employees, who have suffered disability, should be given alternate employment and that is the purport of Section 47 (1) of the Act. 4. The Supreme Court in Kunal Singh  Vs. Union of India reported in (2001, II, L.L.J. 735), considered the case of person, who suffered disability while in service and held as follows:- " It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate, its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads " no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service." 5. In view of the specific provision under the Act and the above decision, the respondent's proceedings dated 5.4.2003 discharging the petitioner from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. Counsel for the respondent states that in the mean while, by proceedings No.3014/gg(eph;)2/khnghf/2000-5, dated 26.9.2008, the petitioner has been appointed as Junior helper non I.T.I. as a fresh entrant. 7. In view of the specific provision in the Act, the petitioner, a disabled employee is entitled to the full benefits with continuity of service, pay protection etc. The subsequent order dated 26.9.2008 has to be treated as non est in law. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as per the specific provision under the Special Act. 8. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits i.e. The petitioner is entitled to back wages, pay protection and continuity of service etc. The petitioner shall be paid all benefits forthwith. No costs. 07.07.2009 ra Index: No Internet: Yes To, The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai  600 002. R.SUDHAKAR,J. W.P. NO. 30090 of 2003 07.07.2009.