The central legal point established is that under disability rights acts, an employee who acquires a disability during service should be provided with equal alternative employment without reduction in rank, as mandated by Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.54240/Pa.Tho3/Iru2/2021, dated 17.09.2021 and to direct the respondents to redesignate the post of the petitioner commensurate with his qualification within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 17.09.2021, in and by which, the petitioner has been provided with alternate employment of Office Assistant.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined service in the Health and Family Welfare Department as Driver in the year 2007 in Virudhunagar. On 13.11.2017 he underwent Macro Pituitary Adenoma surgery and due it, his eyesight got weakened. He got medical advice of not to drive vehicles anymore. Therefore on this medical advice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.05.2021 to the second respondent seeking an alternate employment equivalent to his educational qualification, as he possessed qualification M.A., H.P.Ed., CFE. Based on his representation, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, which after examining the petitioner, opined that the petitioner was unfit for Driver post and advised for providing an alternative employment to the petitioner. Again the petitioner made a representation dated 03.03.2021 to the second respondent seeking alternative employment. But vide impugned order, the petitioner has been provided with the post of Office Assistant in the same scale of pay.

3. The learned Counsel further submits that though the petitioner's scale of pay is protected, he has been given employment in the lower category and not in the equal cadre of the Driver. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 submits that no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service and if there are no vacancies available in the said post, the employee should be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available.

4. The learned Counsel further submits that in the case of the petitioner, there are Junior Assistant posts available and therefore, giving him Office Assistant post is unfair and similarly placed person one S.Devaki, who worked as Nurse was provided with alternate employment of Junior Assistant. The learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions in support of his contention :

i. Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and Another [(2003) 4 SCC 524]

ii. Sudharsan Rajpoot Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation [(2015) 2 SCC 317]

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has problem in his eyes and he cannot perform his duties as Driver and he has been posted as an Office Assistant. Though the petitioner is posted as Office Assistant his pay is protected without any reduction. The learned Additional Government Pleader also relied on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.86 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (R) Department dated 08.02.1996 and submits that if any Driver is declared unfit for continuance in the same post by Doctors because of eye defect or any other ailment, he will be provided with alterative employment in posts like Helpers or Office Assistant depending upon their qualification by retaining the same pay scale.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. No doubt the petitioner was working as a Driver and during his service his eyesight got weakened. The Medical Board which examined the petitioner, certifi