Acquisition of disability is not the same as a person with disability.

A.P. Shah, C.J.

Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J., whereby he has quashed the orders of the appellant Corporation dated 14. 2000 and 19. 2000 and directed the appellant Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman into service within a period of two weeks with pay protection, continuity of service, backwages, etc. The brief facts leading to this appeal are stated hereunder.

3. The respondent workman initially joined service in the appellant Corporation as Conductor in the year 1992 and subsequently, the Employment Exchange sponsored his name for the post of Driver and thus, the respondent was appointed as Driver in the appellant Corporation by order dated 5. 1994. On completion of 240 days of service, his services were confirmed. While the respondent was working in the Kancheepuram Depot of the appellant Corporation, on 1. 1999, when he was returning home after completing duty, met with an accident and sustained injury on his right leg. The respondent was admitted in the C.M.C., Vellore and underwent surgery. During treatment, the respondent applied for medical leave and the same was sanctioned from 1. 1999 to 11. 2000. After treatment, the respondent was given duty as Driver. However, due to the injury sustained, the respondent could not move his right leg freely as earlier. Hence, by representation dated 2. 2000, he requested the appellant Corporation to provide him light duty. Pursuant to the said request, by order dated 2. 2000, the appellant Corporation requested the Medical Board to give a report as to whether the respondent was fit for the post of Driver. After examination, the Medical Board, by report dated 23. 2000, opined that the respondent was unfit for the duty of Driver as he had lost his knee movement and there was no possibility to regain the normal movement. Based on the said report, the appellant Corporation issued a show cause notice on 4. 2000 and directed the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The respondent submitted his explanation on 14. 2000 and requested the appellant Corporation to provide him alternate employment/light duty. However, without considering the explanation, the respondent was discharged from service by the order dated 14. 2000. Thereafter, based on a Government Order and the settlement regarding alternate employment, by order dated 23. 2001, the appellant Corporation provided alternate employment and appointed the respondent as Helper (Non-Tech), i.e., Office Assistant and he was posted to the Personnel Section in the Head Office. The respondent joined duty on 4. 2001 and worked continuously. However, by order dated 19. 2001, the respondent was terminated from service with immediate effect without giving any notice or assigning any reason. Though the respondent made several representations seeking alternate employment, no reply was given by the appellant Corporation. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the respondent workman seeking to quash the orders of the appellant Corporation dated 14. 2000 and 19. 2001 and for consequential reliefs. The learned Judge, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India & Another [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 524] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court & Another [2004 W.L.R. 398], held that the termination of the services of the respondent workman was in violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as Disabilities Act) and directed reinstatement of the respondent workman with pay protection, continuity of service and backwages. Being aggrieved, the a