IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 11561 of 2008. Decided on: May 19, 2011. Jatinder Pal …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. S.K.Sood, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner joined as driver with respondent- Himachal Road Transport Corporation, against a post reserved for Ex-servicemen, in the year 1983. In January, 2004, he fell sick and submitted a medical certificate to his employer, seeking leave on medical grounds. He had been seeking extension in leave, because he did not recover from sickness. He was required by the Corporation to appear before a Medical Board. He appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board issued certificate dated 27.3.2004, copy Annexure A-5, to the effect that petitioner had become completely and permanently incapacitated for Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - further service of any kind, because of his ailment, related to heart. Petitioner was issued a notice, copy Annexure A-9, per which he was informed that in view of the Medical Board’s certificate, copy Annexure A-5, it was proposed to compulsorily retire him. He submitted reply, copy Annexure A-10, praying for being permitted to remain on medical leave, till attainment of age of superannuation, which he was to attain on 31.8.2004. He stated in the reply that 200 days medical leave was due in his account and in addition to that, some Earned Leave was also to his credit in the leave account. His request did not find favour with the respondents and order of his retirement, Annexure A-20, which is dated 9.7.2004, was passed. 3. Petitioner has challenged this order, Annexure A-20, by means of the present writ petition. Initially, he filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of that Tribunal, matter came to this Court and was re-registered as CWP(T) 11561 of 2008. 4. In reply, it is stated by the respondents that as the petitioner had become permanently and completely incapacitated for any kind of service, there was no option left with the respondents but to compulsorily retire him and, therefore, impugned order, Annexure A-20 was passed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. - 3 - 6. Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 prohibits dispensing with of services of an employee, who acquires disability during service. First proviso to the Section says that if an employee, on account of acquisition of disability, is not suitable for the post he was holding, he should be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Second proviso says that if it is not possible to adjust such an employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post, until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Section 47(2) says that even a promotion is not to be denied to such an employee, merely on the ground of disability. 7. Third proviso says that appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that their establishment has been exempted from the operation of Section 47 of the Act, by the Government of H.P., in accordance with the third proviso. If that is so, the action taken by them in retiring the petitioner, vide Annexure A-20, is illegal and ultra vires of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and - 4 - Full Participation) Act, 1995 and hence liable to be quashed. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure A-20, is quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary, pensionary and other benefits. May 19, 2011 (PC) ( Surjit Singh ), J.