Madras High Court G. Muthu vs The Management Of Tamil Nadu State ... on 25 August, 2006 Equivalent citations: (2007)ILLJ9MAD, (2006)4MLJ1669 JUDGMENT K. Venkataraman, J. 1. The writ appeal is filed against the order passed in W.P. No. 70 of 2005 dated 06.01.2005. 2. The appellant in the writ appeal has filed W.P. No. 70 of 2005 for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 26.03.2002 passed by the respondent in Ref.No.Niruvagam/A4/5348/2001 discharging him from service on medical grounds and to quash the same and for a direction to reinstate him in a suitable alternative employment with pay protection, continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits and for costs. 3. The case of the appellant is that he joined the services of the respondent Corporation as a driver on 26.08.1993. Later his services was regularised with effect from 24.07.1994. Thereafter, he was promoted as senior driver. While he was working at Ellis Nagar Branch, the respondent Corporation by its order dated 04.02.2002 directed him to appear before the Regional Medical Board, Madurai, to ascertain whether he is fit to work as a driver. He appeared before the Medical Board on 19.02.2002. The Medical Board examined his physical fitness and informed him that they would send the report to the respondent. The Medical Board submitted its report, dated 19.02.2002, wherein it has been stated as under: Vision RE 6/6; LE 6/6 Near vision +1.50 Ns Intraocular Tension: 189 mm ; Normal Fields Central Peripheral Both eyes Normal. Binacular single vision Present. Colour Vision: DEFECTIVE IN BOTH EYES (COLOUR BLIND) Since he is ColourBlind he is unfit to work as Driver. Based upon the report of the Medical Board, the respondent issued him a show cause notice dated 07.03.2002 stating that the Medical Board has found him suffering from 'colour blindness' and hence he is unfit to work as a driver and proposed to discharge him from the post of driver on medical grounds and asked him to submit his explanation within 72 hours from the receipt of the said notice. He has submitted his explanation on 07.03.2002 wherein he has requested the respondent to provide suitable alternative employment with continuity of service and pay protection. 4. The grievance of the appellant is that instead of favourably responding to his request, the respondent by its order dated 26.03.2002 discharged him from service on medical grounds. It is his further case that he has submitted representation to the respondent on 16.07.2002 through the Branch Manager of Ellis Nagar Branch, where he was working, requesting the respondent to sympathetically consider his case for suitable alternative employment. Since there was no response from the respondent Corporation, again he has submitted a representation on 30.08.2004 stating that the discharge from service is contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In view of the fact that the respondent Corporation did not respond to his request to consider his case for alternative job as per the Act, the appellant challenging the order of the respondent dated 26.03.2002 filed the said writ petition for the reliefs stated above. 5. The learned single Judge by his order dated 06.01.2005 dismissed the said writ petition at the admission stage itself on the sole ground that the petitioner approached the Court after a long time. According to the learned single Judge, the order of discharge was passed on 26.03.2002 and the appellant has filed the Writ Petition only in 2004 and hence it is a clear case of laches. In the result, the appellant's writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of laches. 6. The appellant aggrieved by the said order dated 06.01.2005 has filed the present writ appeal. 7. Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has in nut shell formulated the following points for our consideration: (i) The dismissal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself without deciding the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Act, especially when the Act is a benevolent one, is not proper. (ii) The learned single Judge ought to have considered that even though the appellant is unfit due to the disability, should have been retained in service by providing suitable alternative job without resorting to discharge on medical grounds as per Section 47 of the Act. (iii) Section 47 of the Act, has to be construed independently without reference to the other provisions of the said Act. There is a clear distinction between the words "with disability" found in various provisions under Chapter IV to VII of the Act and the words "acquiring disability"