The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the termination clause in the appointment letter and the applicability of the Disabilities Act to the respondent companies.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The writ petition impugns the letter dated 10th March, 2006 purportedly of the Respondent No. 2 Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. repudiating/canceling the appointment of the Petitioner as Managing Director and seeks mandamus to the Respondents to pay compensation equivalent to salary for the un-served period of employment. Notice of the writ petition was issued. Though the writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim relief but no interim relief was granted. The pleadings have been completed and the counsels for the parties have been heard.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a leading Dairy Technologist, qualified from the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana and having served M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. and M/s Britannia Industries Ltd. in the Dairy Sector. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 30th April, 2004 was appointed as the Managing Director of M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. on the terms and conditions contained therein and for a period of five years from 30th April, 2004. The Petitioner while serving as the Managing Director of M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd., on 2nd September, 2005 i.e. after about one and a half years only of his appointment, suffered a major paralytic stroke and was hospitalized and thereafter confined to the house. M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. continued to pay the salary/emolument of the Petitioner. However, the said M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. vide letter dated 10th March, 2006 impugned in this writ petition repudiated/cancelled the contract with the Petitioner with effect from 6th March, 2006.

3. The aforesaid termination is challenged averring the same to be in contravention of Articles 21, 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as being in violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act), as being arbitrary and in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

4. Though the appointment of the Petitioner as Managing Director as well as the letter dated 10th March, 2006 was with/by M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. but the said company was not impleaded as a party/Respondent in the writ petition as field in October, 2006. Rather, pleadings in the writ petition were as if the appointment of the Petitioner as Managing Director was with Respondent No. 2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) was impleaded as the Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition.

5. Upon objection being taken by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in this regard i.e. that the company with which the Petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director had not been impleaded, an application being CM No. 13491/2008 was filed by the Petitioner for impleadment of the said M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. as Respondent No. 4 and which was allowed on 18th January, 2010. However, the Respondent No. 2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. thereafter filed CM No. 20997/2010 for recall of the order dated 18th January, 2010 pleading that M/s Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. already stood merged with the Respondent No. 2 M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Vide order dated 6th December, 2010, the order dated 18th January, 2010 was recalled and the memo of parties as originally filed, was ordered to be the correct memo of parties.

6. The counsel for the Petitioner has during the hearing confined the arguments only under the Disabilities Act. Attention is invited to Section 47 thereof which prohibits dispensation of service or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires disability during his service. It is contended that owing to the said provision, the Petitioner is entitled to compensation equivalent to the emoluments due to him for the remaining period of five years for which he was appointed as the Managing Director.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the