C.W.P No. 6822 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 6822 of 2008 Date of decision : January 28, 2009 Azad Singh ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner was working as a Driver with the Development Department Haryana. Having met with an accident, he was partially disabled and as per the medical board had suffered disability of 50%. In terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”), he was appointed as a Peon. The precise grouse of the petitioner is that though his pay was protected, yet he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/- instead of C.W.P No. 6822 of 2008 ::2:: pay scale of Rs.5000-7850/- in which he had been earlier placed. Section 47 of the Act reads as follows :- “47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.- (1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service; Provided that, if any employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the 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. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability; Provided that the 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.” Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner's pay having been protected, the mandate of Section 47 of the Act has been followed. However, a plain perusal of the first proviso of Section 47 of the Act reveals that it was incumbent upon the respondents to protect the C.W.P No. 6822 of 2008 ::3:: petitioner's pay scale and not merely his pay. A feeble attempt has also been made to urge that since the Transport Department of the Haryana Government has been exempted from the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner being a Driver would also be covered under that exemption/exclusion. In my opinion, this argument is clearly fallacious. The petitioner was never employed with the Transport Department but was working with the Development Department. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to place the petitioner in the same pay scale which he was drawing during his employment as Driver. Arrears on this account be released to the petitioner within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 28, 2009. JUDGE `kk'