1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner is a driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (‘KSRTC’ for short). He challenges Exhibit P3 order cancelling the first time bound higher grade granted to him and seeks directions to sanction the time bound higher grades which he would be entitled to on completion of fifteen years of service. The petitioner contends that he had met with an accident while in service on 2.8.2004 and that this had resulted in extensive injuries. He relies on Exhibit P1 certificate issued by the medical authorities to contend that he had suffered 25% disability and it had been certified that he could not perform his job as a driver. There is a two inch shortening of the lower limb and severe sensory impairment in his left leg. The petitioner had been accommodated on light duty in Stores as Store Issuer by Exhibit P2 order dated 27.1.2009. He was granted the grade promotion eligible to him on account of his length of service as well.

3. However, by Exhibit P3 order, it is stated that the petitioner is not eligible to get grade promotions as Driver Grade I and Driver Selection Grade, since he was on light duty. It is stated that the grade promotions granted should therefore be cancelled. Though the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P4 request before the Managing Director, it is stated that the same has not been acted upon.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is contended that grade promotions on completion of 15 and 18 years of service are granted only to those employees who perform duty in the respective posts. It is stated that going by provisions of Exhibit R1(a) bipartite settlement, service in a post outside the prescribed channel of promotion shall not be counted as qualifying service for grade promotion. It is stated that it was accepting these conditions that the petitioner had availed the light duty posting outside the regular channel and therefore the said period could not be counted for grade promotion as Driver Grade I and Driver (Selection Grade).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to contend that where light duty is allotted to a person on account of a disability suffered by him while in service, the normal rule that the said period could not be counted for grade promotion cannot be pressed into service. It is further stated that since ‘disability’ and ‘persons with disability’ are distinctly defined in the Act, there is no justification for contending that only a person with 40% disability is entitled to claim the protection of S.47.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC, would, on the other hand, contend that S.47 provides for special benefits for persons who suffer a disability while in service and that to make a person eligible for the benefit of S.47, the disability should be of such a nature that it renders him to unfit to carry out duties of the post in question. It is, therefore, contended that it is only in cases where persons suffer 40% disability while in service that the benefit under S.47 can be claimed as of right. It is further contended that it is only in such cases that the period of other duty can be taken into account for granting grade promotions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 524). It is contended that the protection of S.47 is applicable to all employees who acquire disability while in service and there is no requirement that the disability should be of such a nature as to answer the definition of ‘person with disability’ as provided in S.2(t) of the Act.

8. The learned standing counsel relies on the definition of ‘locomotor disability’ as provided in S.2(o) o