THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.22034 OF 2001 O R DE R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents – the Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd in terminating the service of the petitioner with eﬀect from 12.10.1999 by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Superintendent of Mines, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., dated 21.10.1999 on the ground that the petitioner was declared unﬁt to work as coal ﬁller, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler on 1.1.1990 in the respondents – Company and his services were conﬁrmed with eﬀect from 1.7.1996. While so, when the petitioner was under the control of the respondents, due to hard work which is being done underground as Coal ﬁller, he developed pain in the left leg and it resulted in amputation and as he was declared medically unﬁt, he was terminated by the impugned proceedings. The petitioner made a representation and accordingly the petitioner was directed to attend for re- medical examination and the Medical Board found him unﬁt for any employment in the company and asked for opting for Monthly Monetary Compensation to female dependants or employment for major male dependant. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent – Company has not considered his case for providing any alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 before issuing the orders of termination and hence he ﬁled the present writ petition. 4. The respondent – company ﬁled counter aﬃdavit to the eﬀect that as the petitioner was declared medically unﬁt for employment in the company, he was oﬀered to opt for employment to any of his major male dependants or Monthly Monetary Compensation to female dependants, in lieu of employment and he failed to opt for the same. It is stated that as the Medical Board found that the petitioner is unﬁt for employment in the company, he was termination and there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of termination and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1929/2002 and batch dated 9.6.2006 and sought to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the said decision. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as Coal Filler in the respondent – Company and while in service due to amputation of left leg, he was declared medically unﬁt to hold any post in the respondent – Company by the Medical Board. From the material on record, it could be seen that before terminating the service of the petition on the ground of medical invalidation, his case was not considered for providing any alternative employment under Section 47 of the Act. In similar circumstances, when employees of the respondent – company were terminated on the ground that they were declared by the Medical Board to be unﬁt to hold any post, they ﬁled writ petitions before this court for consideration of their cases under Section 47 of the Act and the learned single Judge of this court directed the respondent – Company to consider the case of the writ petitioners for providing alternative employment as contemplated under the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent – Company carried the matter in appeals in W.A.No.1929/2002 and batch and the Division Bench of this court by order dated 19.06.2006 while dismissing the writ appeals, held as under: “. . . Admittedly, in all these cases, the respective Managements have straight away passed orders terminating the services of the respondents – employees. Therefore, the learned single Judge was absolutely right in giving the necessary directions for cosidering the case of the writ petitioners’ for alternative employment as contemplated under the Act. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation in any of the grounds as sought to be urged on behalf of the Management-appellants. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merits in the objections raised on behalf of the Managements- appellants nor any merit in the appeals or in the contentions as urged on its behalf. In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed and the writ petitions in W.P.No.13165/2002 is allowed and the impugned orders of termination in all these three cases are set aside and the respective Managements are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners under Section 47 of the Act and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances and having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1929/2002 and batch dated 09.06.2006, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: “The impugned orders of termination are set aside and the respondent – company shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment to the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------------- -- 14—11—2008