JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th August, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition (C) No. 7502/2016. This appeal raises important questions of law concerning the interpretation of the word 'establishment' under Section 2(k) of the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('the PWD Act') and Section 47 thereof.

Background facts

2. The background facts are that the Appellant applied in 2001 pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Respondent No.1, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer ('FITT') for the post of Executive Consultant, Technology Transfer and IPR. The advertisement stated that the appointment would be on 'contract initially for a period of three years renewable with mutual consent'. The Appellant was selected and appointed on 30th October, 2001 for a period of three years which appointment was formalised by a contract dated 3rd December, 2001.

3. On 3rd December, 2004 the Appellant's contract was extended. It was again extended on 18th January 2008. On 27th November 2008 it was extended for two years. On 19th November 2010 his contract was further extended for three years. In the last mentioned extension FITT 'strongly advised' the Appellant to be more 'proactive'. It was stated that the three years' term was subject to 'satisfactory service review after one year'.

4. It is stated that from 2008 onwards the Appellant began to suffer from serious macular degeneration in his eyes with significant impairment of vision. He enclosed with his writ petition a certificate dated 28th June 2012 issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences ('AIIMS') certifying that he is 100% visually handicapped. FITT in the meanwhile decided not to renew his contract. On 7th November 2013 the Appellant was informed that his services would not be required with effect from 7 th February, 2014. By that this time he had served FITT continuously for over 12 years.

5. On 28th November 2013 the Appellant approached the Disabilities Commissioner under the PWD Act with an application claiming protection under Section 47 thereof. In defending itself in the said application, FITT inter-alia contended that:

(i) it was not an 'establishment' under Section 2(k) of the PWD Act.

(ii) the Appellant was in fact not suffering from any disability;

(iii) the termination of the Appellant's services was not on account of such disability.

6. Simultaneously the Appellant also filed WP(C) No. 749/2014 in which the learned Single Judge issued notice on 31st January, 2014 and also passed an interim order that till the next date of hearing the order dated 7th November 2013 in effect staying the termination of his services. On 10th March 2014 the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Disabilities Commissioner to adjudicate and dispose of the complaint within a period of two weeks during which the interim order dated 31st January 2014 would continue. It was further directed that in case the decision was adverse to the Appellant no precipitate action would be taken by FITT for a period of two weeks to enable the Appellant to seek appropriate remedies.

7. The Appellant's complaint was disposed of by the Disabilities Commissioner by an order dated 2nd December, 2014. It was held that FITT was not an establishment under Section 2(k) of the PWD Act. It was further held that even if FITT was presumed to be an establishment for the purpose of PWD Act, the Appellant would not have the protection under Section 47 thereof as he had been serving in FITT purely on contract basis. He had duly accepted the terms of services that were set out in the contract. According to the Disabilities Commissioner, the word 'employee' referred to in Section 47 of the PWD Act "is the one who is appointed to a post permanently, who had attained the age of superannuation".

8. Aggrieved by t