The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which prohibits the discharge of a disabled person from service and mandates the establishment to provide alternate employment with the same pay scale and service benefits.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to declare that the order of the first respondent dated 15. 2000 in discharging the petitioner with effect 16. 2000 by not protecting the petitioner in his post as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995, arbitrary & violative of Article 14, 16, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to treat the services of the petitioner as continuous one without any break in service and grant all the benefits that the petitioner is entitled to but for medical de-categorisation on 16. 2000, grant the petitioner all the consequential, monetary and other attendant benefits with effect from the date of medical decategorisation on par with his junior V.Kaliyamoorthy, Driver, Staff No.1768.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as Driver in the first respondent Transport Corporation on daily wage basis on 111. 1986 and he was posted at Kalpakkam branch. Petitioner was confirmed in service as Driver by order dated 6. 1993 and he was promoted as Senior Driver with effect from 5. 1993. While the petitioner was serving as Senior Driver, on 210. 1999, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board for eye sight test. The Chairman, Medical Board, by order dated 210. 1999 gave a report to the effect that the petitioner is unfit for four-wheeler driving as he is an old case of BE with mascular degeneration. On 111. 1999 the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation as to why he should not be discharged from service. Petitioner submitted his reply on 211. 1999 and requested the management to provide alternate employment. On 15. 2000 without considering the request of the petitioner he was discharged from service with effect from 16. 2000.

3. On 10. 2000, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assistant Manager (Personnel). The petitioner appeared before the said Officer and on 4. 2001 the petitioner was given appointment as Helper afresh with basic pay of Rs.3,420/-, though he was receiving the basic pay of Rs.4,385/- at the time of his discharge. The petitioners pay protection was not given even though he was medically invalidated. The said action of the Transport Corporation being contrary to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995, (hereinafter called the Act) petitioner has filed this writ petition and prayed for the above declaration and for consequential reliefs in terms of Section 47 of the Act.

4. The first respondent Transport Corporation has filed counter affidavit by contending that there is unreasonable delay of more than five years in filing the writ petition and hence the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of laches. On merits it is contended that the petitioner was granted relief of appointment afresh in terms of G.O.Ms.No.746 Transport Department dated 7. 1981 and the petitioner having accepted the same and joined duty as Helper, he is not entitled to maintain this writ petition seeking relief under the Act.

5. Petitioner has filed additional affidavit on 16. 2010 by stating that for the five years delay in filing this writ petition he is willing to forego his backwages from the date of discharge till the date of filing of the writ petition and prayed for continuity of service and other consequential attendant benefits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from service on the ground of medical invalidation by order dated 15. 2000 with effect from 16. 2000 is a statutory violation. The learned counsel argued that denying the statutory benefit conferred under section 47 of the Act is illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and merely because the petitioner was offered the post of Helper afresh with redu