The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 mandates protection for employees who acquire a disability during their service, ensuring they are not dispensed with or reduced in rank, and are provided with suitable alternative employment if necessary.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The appellant/writ petitioner while working as a bus driver under the respondent-Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, suffered heart attack and had to undergo by-pass surgery. Having become medically invalidated to discharge duty of a bus driver, he asked for alternative employment, but the request was rejected. He was discharged from service. The Writ Petition was allowed in part, giving rise to the present appeal.

2. The only question to be determined in the present case is whether the writ petitioner-workman is entitled to the benefit of alternative employment under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Disabilities Act, 1995").

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner who was a regular driver, suffered heart attack and had to undergo an open heart surgery/by-pass surgery, for which medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs.1 lakh was borne by the respondent-Transport Corporation. After recovery, he requested for light duty. He was referred to Medical Board to assess the suitability to continue as driver. The Medical Board, after examining him, found that he was unfit to drive vehicle and on such recommendation, he was discharged from service on medical grounds – vide Proceedings No.26/4505/Pa.Pi.(Ni)1/MTC(L)/2000, dated 33. 2001. While he claimed for the benefit of re-employment, it was rejected by the impugned order of the respondent-Transport Corporation, dated 28. 2001.

4. While learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner pleaded that the writ petitioner was entitled for alternative employment under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, according to the respondent-Transport Corporation, he was not entitled for such benefit of alternative employment under the Disabilities Act, 1995 and he is entitled for fresh appointment as Helper (non-ITI) in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department, dated 7. 1981, for which the respondent-Transport Corporation is already maintaining a select list of medically discharged persons where his name has been shown at Sl.No.19. Similar plea has been taken before this Court by the parties as was taken before the learned single Judge.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, noticed the rival contentions, as also G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department, dated 7. 1981 and the judgment referred to by the parties.

6. Much prior to promulgation of the Disabilities Act, 1995, for full participation and equality of the people with disabilities, Government of Tamil Nadu, from its Transport Department issued G.O.Ms.No.746, dated 7. 1981, for giving employment to persons who become disabled during service, as extracted hereunder:

"ORDER:

During the budget session, held on 27-4-1981, the Minister (Transport) announced interalia in the Legislative Assembly that the workers who are declared unfit for continuance in the same posts by Doctors, while in service, because of eye defect or any other ailments, will be provided with alternative employment in posts like "Helpers", "afresh" depending upon their qualifications, experience and suitability for the new post, after settling their service benefits.

2. The Government accordingly direct that the workers in State Transport Undertakings who are declared unfit for continuance in the same posts, by doctors, while in service, because of eye defect or any other ailment, be discharged on medical grounds and their service benefits, settled. They should be subsequently provided with alternative employment in posts like "Helpers" depending upon their qualification and experience and suitability the new posts, without consulting the Employment Exchange. They should be appointed as fresh entrants only in the scale of pay or consolidated pay admissible to the new posts and their services terminated on the date on which they at