( 1 ) A short controversy emerges in this writ petition as to whether in view of the payment made by the respondent on account of compensation to the petitioner who was rendered medically unfit and was retired prematurely on medical ground, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called "the Act ). Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was paid a sum of rs. 33,125/- as compensation under the scheme and a sum of rs. 70,941. 60 was paid as compensation under workmen s compensation Act in lieu of alternative employment. It was contended before me that respondents have formulated the scheme in view of directive given by Supreme Court in anand Bihari and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation and Anr, AIR 1991 SC 1003. The scheme was formulated by the respondent and the amount of compensation was paid. Mr. Vibhu Shankar has further contended that the respondent was not obliged to reinstate the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount of rs.