Right to life means right to service.

1. The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai (Division-I) on 22.11.93. While he was on duty on 11.9.2003 in the bus belonging to the Corporation with Regn. No.TN-58-N-0423 from Papanasam to Madurai, it met with an accident and rammed into a stationary lorry. The petitioner was seriously injured in the accident and both of his legs were crushed, resulting in amputation. He was sent for examination before a Medical Board on 30.12.2003, and the Medical Board certified as follows:

"Thiru P. Thangamarimuthu, Conductor, CR08603, Pudukulam Branch, TNSTC, Madurai appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2003 and was examined and found that he was previously admitted and treated at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and above knee Amputation for both lower limb done for the same. As per the work requirements described by the Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai Division, he is considered as medically unfit to the job of Conductor."

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9.1.2004 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.1.2004 stating that he was medically unfit only to serve as Conductor and, therefore, he may be considered for alternate employment. He also relied upon the provisions of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, the petitioner was discharged from service by the impugned order dated 16.7.2004. The petitioner has questioned the said order on the ground that by virtue of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service and even after acquiring disability, if an employee is not found suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

2. I heard Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Siva Manogaran, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

3. Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has suffered loss of both the legs, by virtue of Section 47 of the Act, he is entitled to the alternate employment with continuity of service and other benefits. He would also submit that the right to alternate employment though is not a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, but is a right conferred under the Central enactment and such a right cannot be dispensed with in the manner as has been done in the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that as the petitioner was declared medically unfit, he is not entitled to any alternate post. The learned counsel would further submit that the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No.746, Transport Department dated 2.7.81, directing that the workers in the State Transport undertakings who are declared unfit for the continuance in the same post, by Doctors, while in service because of the eye defect or any other ailments, be discharged on medical grounds and their service benefits settled, and they shall be subsequently provided with alternative employment in the post of "Helpers" depending upon the suitability for the new post. The learned counsel also would submit that by virtue of Section 72 of the Act, the above Government Order shall prevail and no employee can claim alternative employment as a matter of right in terms of Section 47 of the Act. The learned counsel finally would submit that the disability of the petitioner cannot be brought under Section 2(i)(v), as the definition of "locomotor disability" under Section 2(o), does not cover the disability, which the petitioner had acquired.

5. For the disposal of the writ petition, the relevant provisions of the A