1. This writ petition is filed by employee of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited working at Nanjanagudu in Mysore District challenging Annexure-G communication dated 04.04.2014 issued to him by the jurisdictional executive engineer – respondent No.4 thereby informing him that as petitioner was absent from his duties with effect from January 2013 unauthorisedly, he could not be paid salary withheld for the said period.

2. A perusal of the impugned order and the facts leadings to this writ petition disclose that petitioner has suffered disability in his upper and lower limbs. Annexure-A Medical certificate issued by the Doctor of BGS Appollo Hospital, Mysore, reads as under:

“Gradually progressive weakness of both upper and lower limbs since 1991. Was investigated fully at NIMHANS and was concluded that he has limb griddle muscular Dystrophy. His disability is worsenining and he now needs help for all routine day to day activities”.

3. Indeed this aspect of the matter is not in dispute. It is on account of his disability that petitioner has not been attending to his work. He is virtually bedridden from January 2013. The question that has now arisen is, whether petitioner is entitled for payment of salary and allowance though he is incapable of attending to work and has been indeed not attending to the work because of the physical disability.

4. Section 47 of the Central Act Viz., Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) reads as under:

“47. Nondiscrimination in Government employments : –

(1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that, if an 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”.

5. The purport and effect of Section 47 of the Act was considered by the Apex Court in couple of decisions. In the case of KUNAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – (2003) 4 SCC 524, the Apex Court has observed in paragraph 9 that Section 47 clearly indicated that employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired disability during his service. The Apex Court has further observed in the judgment, that in construing a provision enacted in a social and beneficial legislation that too dealing with disabled persons intending to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advanced the object of the Act and served its purpose shall be preferred to the one which came in the way of implementing the object and hindered the purpose. As the language of Section 47 was plain and simple causing statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service, the Apex Court held that full effect has to be given to the intention expressed by the legislature in Section 47.

6. Subsequently, in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of BHAGWAN DASS AND ANOTHER VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – AIR 2008 SC 990, after referring to the ratio laid down in KunalSingh’scase, reiterated the position that the disabled employee cannot be denied the benefit of continuance in service and consequential benefits on the ground that he was incapable of attending to duties of the post. If he cannot