The main legal point established is that a disabled employee, under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, is entitled to suitable alternative employment and pay protection under Section 47, and the employer has a duty to provide such employment.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 110. 2001, passed by the respondent, discharging the petitioner from service and to reinstate him in a suitable post, with continuity of service, pay protection, backwages and other attendant benefits.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Corporation, as a Driver, in the year 1983. Thereafter, on reviewing his service he was designated as a senior driver and later, as a selection grade driver, in the higher scale of pay. The petitioner has blemishless service and he has been given cash awards for accident free driving. When he was working in Gopichettipalayam depot, on 16. 2000, he had met with an accident and he had suffered injuries due to the said accident. He had to undergo surgeries due to the fractures he had suffered. In order to undergo the medical treatment, he had been hospitalised from 7. 2001 till 17. 2001. While so, he was issued with the show cause notice, dated 4. 2001, proposing to discharge him from service on the ground that he was not fit for the post of driver, as per the medical report given by the District Medical Board. On receiving the show cause notice the petitioner had submitted his reply, dated 14. 2001, requesting the respondent to send him to the medical Board for re-examination.

4. On re-examination, the medical Board had given a report stating that the petitioner was unfit for the post of driver. Based on the said report the respondent had issued another show cause notice, dated 17. 2001, proposing to discharge the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a request to the respondent not to discharge him from service, as he was told that he would recover in health and that he would be fit for driving. By a letter, dated 310. 2001, the petitioner had requested the respondent to provide him alternative employment. However, there was no reply from the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the District Collector, Erode, which was forwarded to the respondent, for necessary action. Instead of providing the petitioner with a lighter work, the respondent had given a reply, dated 13. 2002, to the District Collector, marking a copy to the petitioner, informing that the request of the petitioner for alternative employment would not be approved, as his name was included in the seniority list and that appropriate action would be taken in due course. Since no alternative employment had been given to the petitioner, even after the lapse of 1 = years from the date of receipt of the letter, dated 13. 2002, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it has been stated that the petitioner had joined as a driver in the respondent Corporation. During his service he had been punished on several occasions for misconduct, contrary to his claim that his service in the respondent Corporation has been without any blemish. Further, the petitioner, in his letter, dated 20.6.2000, had stated that, on 16. 2000 he had met with an accident, while driving a motor cycle, when he was returning from school, after having gone there to seek admission for his daughter. The petitioner had been granted Medical leave, from 16. 2000 to 112. 2000. Instead of joining duty, the petitioner had applied for leave, from 112. 2000 to 14.02.2001, along with the medical certificate issued by the medical officer, V.M. Kailasam Hospital, Shakthi Nagar. Due to his prolonged Medical leave the petitioner was referred to the medical Board for verifying his fitness as a driver. After examining the petitioner, the medical board had issued a certificate stating that he was not fit for th