IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14131 of 2005 Kamla Devi, wife of Sri Mantu Ram, and Daughter of Late Lallu Ram (Sweeper Ward No. -27) Resident of Mohalla Diwan Mohalla Ram Janaki Chowraha Police Station Khajekalan, District Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Patna Municipal Corporation through its commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. 3. The Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna 4. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 5. The Chief Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 6. The Assistant Administrator cum Executive Officer, Patna City Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, Meena Bazar, P.S. Alamganj, Patnacity ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Prem Nath, Advocate For the PMC :Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr. Advocate & Dr. Poonam Kumar Singh, Advocate 05/ 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PMC). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order, bearing Memo No. 1564 dated 14.9.1996, Annexure-1 passed by the Administrator of the PMC, whereunder services of the petitioner has been dispensed with, with effect from 31.12.1992 on the ground of her blindness as also on the ground of her absence from the office. Aforesaid order is being challenged as violative of Section 47 of the Persons 2 with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which is an Act of the Parliament coming into force with effect from 7.2.1996. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Section 47 of the Act, any employee serving in the establishment, who acquires disability during the service period, cannot be removed from the service on the ground of disability, however, can be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits. It is thus submitted, with reference to Section 47 of the Act, that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated under the impugned order dated 14.9.1996, Annexure-1 with effect from 31.12.1992 the date on which the petitioner acquired blindness. 4. Earlier petitioner had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12424 of 2001 for payment of her salary and this Court directed the authorities to consider her request in the light of her representation dated 10.4.2001, Annexure-4 to the said writ petition, which was directed to be disposed of by this Court under orders dated 26.9.2001, Annexure-1 to the said writ petition. It appears, the said 3 representation was not disposed of and petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 544 of 2002. During the hearing of the M.J.C. petition, the authorities produced the order disposing of the representation and the M.J.C. petition was dismissed in the light of the order disposing of the representation of the petitioner. 5. By filing the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 14.9.1996, Annexure-1 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 31.12.1992 on the ground of blindness of the petitioner being in teeth of the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Act, which, inter alia, provides that the employee acquiring disability during the service period, is required to be paid salary in the same pay scale and service benefits of the post on which the employee was serving on the date of disability. Thus, there is no difficulty in concluding that the order of the Administrator dated 14.9.1996, Annexure-1 is in teeth of Section 47 of the Act, which is, accordingly, quashed with direction to the Municipal Commissioner, PMC to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner with effect 31.12.1992 until she attains the age of superannuation. It shall, however, be 4 open for the Municipal Commissioner to shift the petitioner to any other job which can be performed by a blind person. Arrears of salary in the light of this order be paid to the petitioner within four months from today. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. AFR Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)