An employer is mandated to provide alternative employment with pay protection to an employee who acquires a disability during service, as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

 JUDGMENT :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

All these three intra-court appeals are directed against the common order dated 02.07.2024 passed in two Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.139 of 2022 and 33952 of 2023.

2. The writ petitioner had preferred W.A.No.301 of 2025 insofar as the salary was denied and the Transport Corporation had preferred W.A.Nos.435 and 436 of 2025 insofar as the writ petitions were allowed.

3. All these three appeals are disposed of by this common order.

4. The parties will be referred to as per the ranking in W.A.No.301 of 2025.

5. The appellant writ petitioner who was appointed as a driver in the first respondent Corporation at Anthiyur Depot, while in service, suffered from blurred vision in his left eye. Since there was difficulty in driving the bus, he got his eyes tested wherein he was diagnosed with “Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment” in the left eye and he was advised for a surgery. Due to his ailment in the eye, he had submitted an application seeking for an alternative employment.

6. However, charge memo dated 22.12.2021 came to be issued for absenting from the work and a second charge memo also came to be issued on 05.08.2022 for having got the employment by not disclosing his congenital eye disability. The appellant had submitted his reply, pursuant to which he was referred for medical examination before the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology and Government Ophthalmology Hospital, Egmore, Chennai.

7. As per the report dated 17.04.2024, the appellant suffered from two defects and further in the report it was mentioned that the first defect could only be at birth and not by accident or during intermediate period wherein the second defect may have occurred in intermediate period.

8. The Corporation proceeded with the enquiry and notice was issued to the appellant proposing to dismiss him from service, consequent upon which the appellant had come up with two separate writ petitions, one to direct the Corporation to refer him to the Medical Board to assess his percentage of disability and provide an alternate employment and the other writ petition challenging the charge memos and the consequential notice served proposing a punishment of dismissal from service.

9. The learned Judge had taken note of the fact that when the appellant had originally joined in the year 2015 and had been in service for nearly 7 years till the year 2021, he had only suffered this defect in 2021. The learned Judge had also taken note of the opinion of the Regional Medical Board obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, wherein it was mentioned that insofar as the first defect, the period of time cannot be mentioned as to when it had occurred.

10. In such circumstances, the learned Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in (2008) 1 SCC 579, wherein by placing reliance on Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as “the 1995 Act”], the benefits were provided to the employee and also by considering Section 20(4) of “ The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ” (Act 49 of 2016) [hereinafter referred to as “the 2016 Act”] had come to the conclusion that the respondents are bound to provide alternative employment to the appellant.

11. However, on arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Judge after quashing the charge memos, had directed the Transport Corporation to provide an alternative employment for one year and thereafter, refer him for medical examination and accordingly extend the further period of alternative employment. Further while directing the period of absence as duty for all purposes, the benefits of salary had been denied.

12. Assailing the orders passed in the writ petitions, the above writ appeals are preferred both by the employee and the Corporation.

13. Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel ap