The central legal principle established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act must be given full effect and are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

Anil Dev Singh, J.-By this writ petition the petitioners challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 29.2002 passed in O.A. No. 398/97. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as follows:

2. On 2 3.1980 the private respondent was appointed as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, on 3.1991 his services were regularised. On 30.4.1996, a medical board was constituted, for his medical examination. After the receipt of the opinion of the medical board his services were terminated on 30.9.1996 as he was found to be unfit for government service on account of medical disability. With effect from the same date the said respondent was granted disability pension. The private respondent feeling aggrieved by his termination, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The Tribunal, vide impugned order, directed as follows:“Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed. The order Annex.A. 1 is hereby quashed. The applicant shall be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order under Section 47 of the Act within a period of 15 days of the communication of this order. No order as to costs.”

As is clear from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the order terminating the services of he private respondent dated 30.9.1996 was quashed and he was deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal also directed the petitioners to pass appropriate orders Under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”).

3. Mr. M. Bhandari and Mr. B. Bagri, learned counsel appearing from the petitioners submit that the Tribunal erred in giving the aforesaid directions to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the private respondent has acquired a medical disability as a result of which he is unable to perform the duties of his post. The learned counsel urged that the disease from which he is suffering has reduced his mental faculty to the level of a ten years old child. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Act are in conflict with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, and this being so, the former act must give way to the later Acts.

4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners. We find that the submissions have no force at all. According to Section 2(i) of the Act, “disability” means - blindness; low Division; leprosy-cured; hearing impairment; loco-motor disability; mental retardation; and mental illness. Thus, mental retardation is one of the disabilities covered under the provisions of the Act. That apart, Section 2(t) of the Act lays down that “person with disability” means - a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. It is not the case of petitioners that the private respondent was suffering from a disability which was less than forty per cent. The petitioners as well as the private respondent have proceeded in the matter on the basis that the disability of the private respondent was more than forty per cent. In fact it was argued before us that the private respondent was totally disabled, in as much as, he was not able to discharge the duties of his office because of his mental retardation. After having made that argument, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the Act is not applicable as the petitioners had not urged and established that the private respondent was suffering from a disability which was not less than forty per cent.

5. It is noteworthy that the Act was promulgated to fulfill the International Treaty, Obligations of the State. A meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993- 2002, convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, was held at Beijing on