The main legal point established is that a disabled person, under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is entitled to all the benefits as if in continuous service, including backwages.

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 denying payment of back wages to the petitioner alone and consequential direction to the respondent to disburse all the backwages from 15.12.1997 with subsequent interest accrued thereon.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a disabled person and he is entitled to the benefit in terms of the provisions to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), 1995. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 6331 of 2012 and this Court, on 17.12.2012, had passed the following order:

“3. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to provide alternative employment to the petitioner, in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to all other benefits, as per the Act. No costs.”

3. After the above order passed by this Court, the respondent has reinstated the petitioner with effect from 15.12.1997 viz., the date on which he was relieved from service, with continuity of service, other attendant benefits and with pay protection but without back wages and provided alternative employment as “Helper”. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the following decisions:

(1) Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1623

(2) V. Palanishanmugavel vs. Manager TNSTC, Tirunelveli and Others, 2007 (4) CTC 475

(3) G. Muthu vs. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2007 LLJ 49

(4) Bhagvan Dass vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2005 (2) LLJ 1

(5) A. Arumugam vs. Director of School Education, DPI Campos and Others

(6) P. Varadharajan vs. Stats Express Transport Corporation and Others

(7) A. Mani vs. Managing Directors, TNSTC, Kumbakonam and Others, W.P. (MD) No. 5655 of 2011, dated 19.12.2011.

(8) T.N. Ravichandran vs. Secretary to Government Transport Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai and Another, W.P. No. 3667 of 2012, dated 07.01.2013.

5. This Court in A. Mani’s case held as follows:

“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been given a copy of the said order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this order did not talk about any back wages. It is needless to state that already this Court in more than one writ petition emphasized that Section 47(1) is an injunction against the employer from dispensing with the service of a person who has become disabled. The disability has to be considered under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is needless to state that such person, if the services were dispensed with or discontinued or denial of alternative employment, is also entitled for wages, as if, there was no denial of employment. Taking note of the direction issued by this Court, since the respondents offered the alternative employment, it is for the petitioner to make any representation in case the wages are not paid and the respondents have positively response to such representation. If any adverse orders are passed, it is always open to the petitioner to make the grievance of the same before an appropriate forum.”

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the decision of this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as if he is in continuous service and the entire backwages will have to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 21.5.2013. The respondent is unable to refute the contentions of the petitioner. The amount due to the petitioner is not gratis or bounty.

7. Therefore, the respondent is direc