The main legal point established is that the Disabilities Act 1995, Section 47 protects employees who acquire a disability during service from termination or reduction in rank, and mandates alternative employment with the same benefits if the employee is not suitable for the current post.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

The petitioners impugns the order dated 25.2.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) in OA No.561/2015, holding as under:

“6. Considering the above, the O.A. is allowed. We quash the impugned orders dated 26.03.2013, 24.05.2013 and 18.09.2014 of the respondents and direct that the applicant be taken back in service. The applicant has been claiming that he was medically fit to work as a driver. The respondents may, if they are so advised, get a fresh medical examination conducted and offer a post of driver to the applicant, if he is found to be medically fit for the post. In case the respondents feel that the applicant is not fit to work as a driver they may offer him a suitable post with equal emoluments and if no such post is available, they may place the applicant on a supernumerary post till such post becomes available. The applicant may be put on probation and be considered for confirmation in due course. He would also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority as in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra). We also direct that the applicant be granted 50% of back wages for the entire period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to allow any interest on the arrears. These benefits shall be extended to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed in DTC as a Driver on 06.04.2011. He was put on probation for a period of two years. On 05.03.2012, he met with an accident, which rendered him unfit for performing duties as a Driver. On 11.03.2013, the respondent requested his superiors to give him light duties but his request was not acceded to. He appeared before a Medical Board on 20.03.2013 and according to him no medical examination was conducted but he was told that he will receive his medical report shortly. On 04.04.2013, the respondent was shocked to receive a show cause notice dated 26.03.2013 issued by the Depot Manager asking him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The respondent gave a detailed reply on 15.04.2013. However, vide order dated 24.05.2013 the petitioners terminated the services of the respondent. An appeal made by the respondent on 03.06.2013 was also rejected by a cryptic order conveyed to the respondent by Depot Manager. The respondent then approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 2487/2014 which was disposed of on 25.07.2014 and directions were given to the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. In compliance thereof, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2014, the respondent has been informed by the Depot Manager that his appeal has been rejected by the competent authority.

3. The Tribunal, while allowing the OA and granting relief, has relied on the decision of this Court in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation, in WP(C) No.4261/2013, wherein the High Court has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1623. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent was under probation, when he was deemed medically unsuitable for discharging duties as a driver. His services were, therefore, terminated under Standing Order and Rules/Regulation 9(a)(i) of the DTC. It is further submitted that benefit for The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights & full participation) Act 1995 (‘Disabilities Act’) cannot be extended to the respondent as he was not suffering from 40% disability. This Bench in its decision dated 16.3.2017 in WP(C) No.9885/2015 titled Sunil Kumar Vs. DTC & Ors. has gone through the aforesaid question, while relying on Section 47 of the Disabilities Act and the decision in Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr., (supra), holding as under:-

“10. Section 47 of the Persons wi