The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which imposes an obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service and pay full backwages from the date of disability till the date of superannuation.

M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.08.2011 made in W.P.No.1606 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Order in W.P.No.1606 of 2011 on 18.08.2011 [filed by the Appellant/Petitioner] has, among other things, observed that '... the respondent Corporation cannot be put up at a peril for the petitioner's inaction for nearly six years. However, ultimately this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.11641 of 2009, set aside the order of dismissal from service. Thus considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to backwages at least from the date when he sought for protection under Section 47 of the Act i.e. during September 2008. In fact in the order passed in W.P.No.27736 of 2008, this Court has specifically observed that it is open to the petitioner to workout his remedy under the provisions of the Act. The liberty granted by this Court was availed by the petitioner. However, the respondent Corporation chose to reject the petitioner's appeal petition though it would have been appropriate for them to have considered the case of the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act. For reasons best known, the Corporation did not extend the benefit of Section 47 of the Act to the petitioner though they were statutorily bound to do so in terms of the provisions of the Act. This resulted in the filing of the second Writ Petition, which was allowed by this Court on 5.2.2010. It is only thereafter, the respondent Corporation extended the benefit of Section 47(1) of the Act and granted light duty to the petitioner with full pay protection and other benefits which the petitioner is entitled to under Section 47 of the Act. Therefore, this is a fit case where the petitioner should be entitled for backwages from September 2008 onwards till he was reinstated in service' and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2010 in so far as it denies the backwages and further directed the respondent Management to pay backwages from September 2008 onwards to the petitioner and treat the period of absence from 29.07.2002, till the date of reinstatement for all other purposes including for computing the length of service, etc., except for monetary benefits and allowed the Writ Petition in part and consequently, closed the Contempt and Miscellaneous Petitions.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, the Learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that keeping in view of the total disabilities sustained by the Appellant/Petitioner, whether the Alternative Employment provided by the Respondent/ Management is a Suitable Alternative Employment to him.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the Appellant/Petitioner has acquired permanent total disability, while discharging his duties on 29.07.2002 and he could not do anything on his own, since he was in a bedridden condition. As such, the Learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the impugned order passed by the Respondent/Management dated 31.12.2010.

5. The plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner is that the Learned Single Judge should have passed an order in M.P.No.1 of 2011 [filed by the Appellant/Petitioner] in W.P.No.1606 of 2011 seeking for his full physical medical assessment report from the Medical Board instead of closing it.

6. Also, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner that the Learned Single Judge, in reality, ought to have called for an overall General Physical Assessment Report of the Medical Board from the Respondent/Management, instead of placing reliance on the Medical Report sought for in regard to the fitness status of the Appellant/ Petitioner to the post of driver alone.

7. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge should have directed the Respondent/Managem