IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3719 of 2003 Between: S. Bal Raj ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 2. The Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3. The Depot Manager Gadwal, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Proceedings No.LC1/876(45)/2001-RM-MBNR, dated 29-6-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disability Act,1995 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.LC1/876(45)/2001-RM-MBNR, dated 29-6-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking employment as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 as arbitrary and illegal. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1991. It seems, while he was working in the Gadwal Bus Depot, absented from duty unauthorizedly from 23-5-1997 to 31-5-1997. Thus, after conducting an enquiry, he was removed from service by an Order dated 17-3-1998. Ultimately, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.54 of 2000. However, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement. The petitioner agreed to be appointed afresh losing his seniority of about 7 years. The Lok Adalat passed an Order directing the Management to appoint the petitioner afresh, subject to medical fitness. The petitioner was sent for medical examination. Unfortunately, it was found that he was suffering from defective eye vision. Therefore, he was declared unfit to hold the post of Conductor. According to the petitioner, he suffered eye injury while in service and he was referred to Tarnaka Hospital and he was treated thereat. Even with such defect, he was already working as on the date of removal from service. Therefore, digging out something, which was already there even before he was removed from service, cannot be made a ground for denying employment to him in the guise of medical unfitness to hold the post of Conductor. In fact, petitioner is not a new recruit to apply the yardstick of medical fitness and throw him out of employment. Petitioner, before his removal from service, worked for more than 7 years and he suffered injury while he was in service. Simply because he was removed in the meanwhile for absenteeism and in view of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, he was to be reinstated, subject to medical fitness and in the medical test he was found to be unfit to hold the post of Conductor, that does not mean he is not entitled for the benefits under Section 47 of the Act for providing alternative employment. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation strenuously contended that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated afresh, subject to medical examination; therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioner was, for the first time, being appointed into the service of the Corporation and it must be deemed that he is not entitled to hold the post of Conductor; as such, the provisions of Section 47 of the Act are not attracted. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Respondents have made a very pedantic approach in deciding the matter of employment of a person, who served for more than 7 years and who had compromised for being appointed afresh to avoid long delay etc., and he cannot be denied the benefit of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. Petitioner, as a matter of right, is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 47 of the Act. He was not appointed in any fresh recruitment that had taken place in the Corporation in pursuance of any notification issued by it. He was directed to be reinstated afresh, in view of some labour litigation and amicable settlement; of course, subject to medical fitness. Even if he is found to be medically unfit to hold the post of Conductor, it cannot be said that his case cannot be considered for providing alternative employment under Section 47 of the Act. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the decision of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India[1] wherein it was held as under: "9. . . . . . .In construing a provision of a 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. . . . . . . " It is also settled law that 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. It 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. In view of the above, the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing any suitable and alternative employment to him in the Corporation as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 22-4-2008 prk [1] AIR 2003 SC 1623