The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal obligation to continue employing disabled individuals under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, overriding any delay in filing the petition.

1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent State owned transport corporation to comply with Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short Disabilities Act) and to grant same scale of pay and other service benefits.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.10.2009. On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.4.2010, to which the petitioner has filed a rejoinder dated 30.4.2010.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he joined as a driver in the respondent transport corporation on 28.1.1982. While he was on duty on 5.5.1995 in the route No.76B, his bus met with an accident. The petitioner was also injured in the incident. He had to undergo necessary treatment from 5.5.1995 to 15.11.1995. His case was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board by its report dated 14.5.1997 found that the petitioner was not fit to work as a driver. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why he should not be discharged from duty on grounds of medical unfitness. After receiving the petitioners explanation, he was discharged from duty on 31.7.1997. The petitioner gave his representation that he should be given an alternate job. By an order, dated 6.11.1997, the petitioner was given an appointment as a Junior Clerk as a fresh entrant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department, dated 2.7.1981.

4. The petitioner claimed that at that time, he was not aware of the provisions of the Disabilities Act. Thereafter, he sent several representations. But, however, representations, dated 23.8.2007 and 18.5.2008 alone were enclosed in the typed set. The petitioner claimed that in a similar circumstance, this court granted a direction to comply with Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. But, in the counter affidavit, it was claimed that the petitioner was given employment commensurate with his educational qualification i.e. Junior Clerk in the scale applicable to the post of driver and he had continued to get emoluments. He also accepted his alternate employment and has been in service from 12.11.1997. The petitioner has filed the petition after a decade and it should not be entertained by this court.

5. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in 2008 (2) MLJ 79 (SC) = (2008) 1 SCC 579. The facts of the case were set out in paragraphs 6,7,14 and 18, which reads as follows:

"6. In view of Section 47 of the Act and the circulars issued by the State Government and the Board it is clear that notwithstanding the disability acquired by the appellant the Board was legally bound to continue him in service. But on behalf of the respondent it is stated that the disabled employee himself wanted to retire from service and, therefore, the provisions of Section 47 had no application to his case. Here it needs to be made clear that at no stage any plea was raised that since the appellant was declared completely blind on 17-1-1994 he was not covered by the provisions of the Act that came into force on 7-2-1996. Such plea cannot be raised because on 7-2-1996 when the Act came into force the appellant was undeniably in service and his contract of employment with the Board was subsisting. His case was, therefore, squarely covered by the provisions of the Act.

7. Coming now to the reason assigned by the Board to deny him the protection of Section 47 of the Act, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that he remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave from 18-1-1994 to 21-3-1997. He was directed by the Executive Engineer to resume duties vide Memo No. 412 dated 16-3-1994 and Memo No. 6411 dated 4-8-1994. He, however, failed to report for duty and on 13-9-1994, a charge-sheet was issued initiating disciplinary procee