D. Hariparanthaman, J.

The petitioner was a Driver employed by the respondent Corporation. In the year 2012, the petitioner was suffering from ear pain and thereafter lost his hearing capacity. The petitioner was referred to the respondent Corporation's Medical Officer. He referred the petitioner to the Medical Board and the Medical Report revealed that the petitioner suffered 70% hearing loss. Hence, the petitioner requested the respondents for alternative employment, but he was not provided with the same. It is stated that from 06.01.2013, the petitioner was not provided with any job. Now the present writ petition is filed seeking for alternative employment to him by protecting his pay as Driver.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation has produced an order dated 16.01.2015 providing alternative employment as light duty. In view of the same, no order is necessary with regard to the prayer for providing alternative employment.

3. As far as the prayer relating to treat the period from 06.01.2013 till he was provided alternative employment as duty period, is concerned, it is useful to extract Section 47 of the Act, as under:

"47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service;

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits;

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability;

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

4. As per Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, an employee shall not be discharged from service on a finding that he is unfit to hold the post due to medical reasons. On the other hand, he shall be provided any alternative employment, ie., he cannot suffer due to non-employment, due to his unfitness on medical reasons. Hence, in all cases where the employees are discharged on the ground of unfitness and provided alternative employment subsequently, they are entitled to wages for the period of non-employment. It is a well settled principle.

5. In this context, it is useful to extract Paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported in 2008(2) L.L.N. 1:

"17. From the materials brought before the Court by none other than the respondent-Board it is manifest that notwithstanding the clear and definite legislative mandate some officers of the Board took the view that it was not right to continue a blind, useless man on the Board's rolls and to pay him monthly salary in return of no service. They accordingly persuaded each other that the appellant had himself asked for retirement from service and, therefore, he was not entitled to the protection of the Act...

18. ...

19. We understand that the officers concerned were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mindset it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty-bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful rights of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the offic