Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The petitioner was appointed on 2nd December, 1977 as driver in the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 29.11.2003 discharging him from service.

2. The facts are few and not in dispute. From inception of the service till he was finally discharged by the impugned order 29.11.2003 there is absolutely nothing against the work and conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner has been discharged for medical reasons. In the year 1999 he was medically examined. The doctor gave a report to the Assistant Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation that the petitioner is not medically fit to drive the Bus as he is a patient of asthmatic bronchitis C Lt. shoulder Jt. injury. However, the doctor further suggested that he may be given an alternative job instead of driving vehicles. The said report has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. In the light of the medical report, the petitioner was shifted to workshop for doing other duties like greasing. He was again medically examined on 21.05.2002 and thereafter the impugned discharge order dated 29.11.2003 was passed. In between a further development took place.

4. It appears that the Corporation decided that the workers who are disabled may not be posted at their original Depot and therefore, the order dated 5.6.2003 proposing transfer of the petitioner to another Depot outside the district was passed and in this regard, option with regard to three places was asked for. The petitioner alongwith other persons being aggrieved by the said order/action of the Corporation approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34068 of 2003, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 32349 of 2003 by the order dated 8.8.2003. The petitioner represented that he should not be transferred to another Depot. According to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner was not well received by the Corporation and its Officials became annoyed and this led passing of the impugned discharge order by offering retrenchment benefit under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

5. In the counter-affidavit as well as in the impugned order, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was discharged from the service after becoming medically unfit for the post of driver. He was initially allotted some lighter work. The disease suffered by the petitioner does not come within the meaning of “disability” under the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1995”) as such he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 47 of the said Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. At the very out set, it may be stated that while entertaining the writ petition, this Court on 19th February, 2004 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 29.11.2003. The said order remained in operation throughout. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. In this background, the writ petition was disposed of earlier by the judgment dated 1st February, 2008 by providing that the petitioner be treated as an employee till he retired on 31st January, 2007 and be paid retrial benefit etc. by ignoring the impugned order dated 29.11.2003.

8. The matter was carried in intra Court appeal being Special Appeal No. 825 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 16.7.2008 has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restored the matter back for fresh decision on merits.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed as the petitioner had challenged proposed transfer from one depot to another. The petitioner has discharged the work of greasing till the date of his retirement and therefore, the impugned orde