Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner was initially appointed as Driver-cum-Fitter vide order dated 25/07/1979 (Annexure-1). While he was driving roadways Bus No. RJ-14-P-1113 from Alwar to Jaipur, the bus met with an accident on 11.02.1992 due to which his left foot was amputated resulting into his disability of 40% as opined by Principal Medical Officer, Alwar vide letter dated 08/07/1994 (Annexure-7). When he resumed duty on 12.05.1992, petitioner submitted application to work elsewhere on some equivalent post. His application was sympathetically considered by respondent and he was allowed to work as vehicle washer or on some equivalent post. Because of disability attributed while in service and as per medical report (Anneuxre-7), petitioner was considered to be unfit to discharge duty of the post of Driver, and as a consequence whereof , his services were terminated holding that he was unable to discharge duty of driver, vide order dated 25.04.1996, which was challenged by him in CWP No. 2442/1996, wherein this Court directed respondents to consider his case for alternative job, which could be performed by him and in compliance whereof , respondents appointed petitioner vide order dated 011.1996 (Annexure-11) as Artisan Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1,350/-. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Only grievance of petitioner is that he was offered fresh appointment on the post of Artisan Grade-III; but he was neither afforded protection of pay nor of continuity in service of the post of driver, which according to him is violative of Section 47 of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Act”). 3. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri Manish Bhandari, Counsel for respondent RSRTC urged that once he was found to be unfit to discharge duties of the post of driver as medically certified, his services were rightly terminated after due compliance of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 vide order dated 25.04.1996; but after the Judgment of this Court in his earlier writ petition (Supra), and consideration, he has been appointed as Artisan Grade-III, which will make him entitled for pay scale of the post of which he is discharging duties. 4. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and pondered over material on record. Before examining the controversy, it is useful to have resume of certain provisions of the Act. 4. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and pondered over material on record. Before examining the controversy, it is useful to have resume of certain provisions of the Act. Section 2 (i) defines “disability”, which reads as under: “(i) “Disability” means-(i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy cured; (iv) hearing impairment; .(v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; and (vii) mental illness. “Locomotor disability” is defined in Section 2 (o) of the Act which reads as under: “(o) “Locomotor disability” means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy.” “Rehabilitation” is also defined in Section 2 (w) of the Act which runs as under:- .(w) “Rehabilitation” refers to a process aimed at enabling persons with disabilities to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory, intellectual, psychiatric or social functional levels; Section 47 deals with “non-discrimination in Government employment” which provides 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 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 earliest. (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.” 5. Section 47 provides protection to the employee, who acquires disability during his service, and rightly so being beneficial legislation, if such protection is not provided, it is not employee who will suffer but whole of his family which is dependent upon him, would also suffer. According to Counsel for petitioner, petitioner suffers with disability during his service which falls within Section 2(i) (v), namely “locomotor disability”, so also Section 2(o) of the Act. What is meant by “locomotor disability” is defined in Section 2(o). According to Counsel for petitioner, petitioner suffers with disability during his service which falls within Section 2(i) (v), namely “locomotor disability”, so also Section 2(o) of the Act. What is meant by “locomotor disability” is defined in Section 2(o). It is not in dispute that the Act applies to respondent Corporation and this establishment is not exempted by any notification issued under the Act. As per definition under Section 2(t) of the Act, “person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. 6. The scope of Section 47 of the Act has been analysed by Apex Court in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India AIR, 2003 SC 1623. It has been laid down thus: “Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service.” “Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted so some other post with same pay scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It appears no such efforts were made by respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the effect of the provision of Section 47 of the Act”. (Emphasis added) 7. From the facts on record, it is not in dispute that petitioner has been suffering from locomotor disability, which is more than 40% and is covered by Section 2 (i) (v) read with Sub-sections 2(o) and 2(t) of the Act. (Emphasis added) 7. From the facts on record, it is not in dispute that petitioner has been suffering from locomotor disability, which is more than 40% and is covered by Section 2 (i) (v) read with Sub-sections 2(o) and 2(t) of the Act. Section 47 of the Act deals with “non-discrimination in Government employment” in respect of a Government employee who acquires a disability during his service; and protection has been given to such employees that the establishment will not initiate any prejudicial action against them, either of dispensing with or reducing in rank; and if at all after acquiring disability, he is held not suitable for the post he was holding, he should be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service bonefits; and if at all establishment finds that it is not possible, he be kept on a supernumerary post in same pay scale and service benefits which were available to him prior to his disability during service until a suitable post is available. In this view of the matter, and keeping in view object of beneficial enactment especially in particular Section 47 of the Act, in my opinion, petitioners, who acquired disability during service (Supra), is entitled for protection as provided in aforesaid Section 47. Therefore, denial of same pay scale and service benefits by respondents, despite representations as sought for by petitioner therein, is in violation of Section 47 of the Act and in breach of the constitutional mandate. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. respondents are directed to provide full protection to the petitioner in terms of Section 47 of the Act and while doing so, he may be provided with continuity in service so also protection of pay of the post which he was holding at the time of disability during service, with all other consequential benefits. Arrears of pay in compliance of aforesaid direction be computed and paid to the petitioner within three months. No order as to costs.