( 1 )

( 2 ) THIS case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Baljeet Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2000 II AD (Delhi) 88 and Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation CW. 1137/96 decided on 13. 8. 2002 as well as catena of cases decided by Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1864/2000 arising out of SLP (C) 7997/99 and recent judgment of Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623.

( 3 ) IN view of specific provision of the Section 47 of the Act, I do not agree with the argument of counsel for the respondent that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The petitioner was prematurely retired on 9. 9. 96. Petitioner filed the appeal on 24. 4. 97. The appeal of the petitioner was decided on 5. 11. 98. When the Act which was a beneficial piece of legislation for the employees who are entitled for benefit in view of Section 47 of the said Act the respondent cannot say that there was delay in filing the writ petition. Counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 41733. 00 as compensation. In my considered opinion even if said amount of compensation was paid, petitioner would have been entitled for reinstatement in view of specific order and direction passed by Supreme Court in these kind of cases. There is no denial of the fact that injury sustained by the petitioner was during his employment. The ratio of Kunwar Pal Singh s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. I, therefore, direct respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post which was equivalent to the post of conductor with protection of pay as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act. If there is no post available, the respondent would create a supernumerary post within eight weeks to accommodate the petitioner. As the petitioner has not done any work, he shall be entitled to half back wages.