Judgment :- The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in KA. No. E4/3634/tha Aa Poka (Salem Division-I) dated 1.6.1998. quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in any suitable post without causing reduction in salary, seniority and other attendant benefits with-beckwages and continuity of service etc.. 2. Heard Mr. J. Saravanavel, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. HP. Kabilan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 3. The petitioner joined tne service of the second respondent-Corporation as a Driver during 1982. On 29.6.1996, when the petitioner was on duty, the vehicle driven by the petitioner met with an accident consequent to the rash and negligent driving of third party lorry. The petitioner sustained injuries and he was admitted in the Madurai Rajaji Hospital and was operated for Head injury. The petitioner underwent treatment for six months. During the said period, he was paid salary and no amount had been paid towards medical expenses. After recovery, the petitioner approached the respondent to give him posting for a light duty on very occasions, but there was no reply. 4. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board at Salem on 23.3.1998. The Medical Board opined that the petitioner is not fit to drive and continue as a Driver. The petitioner requested the respondent to give him an alternate tight duty. Instead, the respondents decided to throw the petitioner out of job and caused a show-cause notice for removal on 21.5.1998. The petitioner submitted nis explanation on 25.5.1998 wherein he had requested that he can do lighter duties like time keeper, diesel pump operator etc, and objected to the show cause notice. 5. Without considering the said objections, the impugned order has been passed on 1.6.98. The said order is being challenged as highly arbitrary, unfair, and violative of Articles 14 and 21. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner besides the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Chandler v. State of Haryana and others reported in JT 1994 (2) SC 94. The petitioner also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Gourt dated 23.3.1997 in W.P. No. 7876 of 1993. 6. Mr. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner besides the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Chandler v. State of Haryana and others reported in JT 1994 (2) SC 94. The petitioner also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Gourt dated 23.3.1997 in W.P. No. 7876 of 1993. 6. Mr. R.P. Kabilan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 sought to sustain the order contending that as per the Government Orders, the petitioner had been terminated as he is not suitable and if he applies for alternate fresh appointment, he will be considered for alternative appointment. The contents of the show-cause notice were relied upon by Mr. R.P. Kabilan, in support of his contention. By the impugned proceeding, the petitioner had been discharged by giving a months time. Even thereafter also, the petitioner moved the second respondent to review the order and to reinstate him with continuity of service in a suitable light duty by giving pay protection. 7. The contention raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioner. Though Mr. R.P. Kabilan, learned counsel points put that as per the State Government directions, alternate employment, suitable to the physical condition, had to be given as a fresh appointment, this contention of Mr. R.P. Kabilan, learned counsel, cannot be sustained in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana , reported in JT 1994 (2) SC 94, wherein it has been held thus:— “7. Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a Matriculate, he is eligible, for the post of L.D.C. For L.D.C, apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must. Since he is a Matriculate, he is eligible, for the post of L.D.C. For L.D.C, apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent-Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as a L.D.C. Admittedly, on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Necessarily therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been rehabilitated in the post of L. D.C. we direct the respondent to appoint him to the post of L.D.C protecting his scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary.” 8. The above pronouncement of the Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. That apart, the teamed counsel for the writ petitioner also relied upon an order passed by th is Court in respect of another State Transport Corporation wherein directions have been issued, following the judgment of the Apex Court. 9. The contention raised by Mr. R.P. Kabilan, learned counsel for the respondents which has been vociferous cannot be sustained in the light of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court after restoration to duty, the petitioner should have been taken back to duty with continuity of service in light duty commensurate with his physical condition, but he should have been given pay protection. In the light of the said pronouncement, the G.O. relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is of no avail. To the show-cause notice, the petitioner at the earliest represented that he may be given an alternate posting with lighter duty as he is not suitable for driving. 10. It is also to be pointed out that the petitioner had sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the opposite third party lorry driver while he was driving the ill-fated State Transport Undertaking Bus. Instead of considering the request, the third respondent had discharged the petitioner, which action is illegal and the impugned proceeding has to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. Instead of considering the request, the third respondent had discharged the petitioner, which action is illegal and the impugned proceeding has to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. This Court holds that the petitioner is deemed to be in continuous service without break and the respondent is directed to assign a light duty while protecting his pay and all benefits which he is entitled to as if he had been in service, besides one half of back wages for the period during which he had been denied employment. The parties shall bear their respective costs. 12. Consequently, connected pending W.M.Ps are dismissed.