IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15097 of 2005 Between: Katarapu Laxmaiah, EC No.1205857, S/o.Ellaiah, Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Bhupalpally, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., rep.by its Project officer, Bhupalpally, Warangal Dist. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus; i) declare the impugned proceedings No.BHP/PER/20/2003/ 1311 DT.8/11-72003 issued by the respondent as illegal arbitrary and set aside the same. ii) consequently direct the respondent to provide the petitioner with any suitable alternative employment duly protecting pay and other services, in case if there is alternative employment he may be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, duly granting all other consequential benefits. iii. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: Though W.P.M.P.No.486 of 2009 is listed for hearing, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 08/11-07-2003 by which his services were terminated on the ground that he has developed defective vision in the eye due to Congenital Coloboma Iris and Choroid+ complicated cataract. The petitioner was initially appointed on 04-04-1980 in the respondent-Singareni Collieries Company Limited at GDK-9 Incline and thereafter transferred to Bhupalapally area during September, 1996. On the ground that he suffered visual disability during the course of his service, his services were terminated by the impugned order. The order of termination is mainly challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act No.1 of 1996) it is not open to the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner on account of developing such disability. Reference is made to the provision under Section 47 of the said Act and it is pleaded that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to provide suitable post to the petitioner by protecting the pay-scale and service benefits. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-company. While generally denying the allegations of the petitioner, based on the letter dated 30-05-2003, it is stated that in view of the said letter, the respondent-company is exempted from the provisions of Act 1 of 1996. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- company that the aforesaid letter, which was issued by way of memorandum, was the subject matter of challenge before this court and the same was quashed. It is further submitted that the said judgment of the learned single Judge was also affirmed in view of the dismissal of W.A.No.1929 of 2002 by judgment dated 09-06-2006. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that subsequently a notification was issued by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.78 dated 14-03-2006 exempting Singareni Collieries Company Limited from the provisions of Act 1 of 1996. A perusal of the said notification would make it clear that there is an exemption granted by the Government, but it is not retrospective in operation. The said exemption is subsequent to the order of termination, which is impugned in this writ petition. As much as the provision under Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 was in force at the time when the impugned order of termination was passed, the said termination is illegal and runs contrary to Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that pursuant to the interim orders of this court, the petitioner was given alternative employment, but his pay-scale and other benefits are not protected. However, it is to be noted that, in view of the provision under Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996, the petitioner is entitled for protection of his pay- scale and service benefits. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by giving protection to the pay which he was drawing at the time of his termination. The petitioner is also entitled for arrears of salary on account of such re-fixation of salary after his reinstatement into service and other benefits. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 24, 2009 Va/MRR