Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.8.2004 passed by the respondent in Ref.No. Administration/A2/2031 discharging the petitioner from service on medical grounds and to quash the same and for a direction to reinstate me in a suitable alternative employment with pay protection, continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.) The petitioner joined the services of Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited as a daily wage driver in July, 1996. Thereafter, he was selected for the permanent post of driver by an order, dated 8.4.98. He was transferred from Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, the respondent herein, and his services were regularised with effect from 1.2.99. The petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.5,874/= as last drawn wages while he was working at Cumbum branch. 2. When the petitioner was sent for routine eye check, Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai certified that the petitioner was unfit to perform the duty as a driver in HPT vehicles. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, Periyakulam in order to find out his fitness to drive, by the letter of the Corporation dated 13.5.2004. By a report dated 18.5.2004, the Medical Board, Periyakulam directed him for a further report by the Special Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, as there was no specialist for eye check-up available with the Medical Board, Periyakulam. Accordingly, the petitioner was referred to the Special Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai by the respondent in its letter dated 19.6.2004. By the proceedings of the Special Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai dated 29.6.2004, it was certified that the petitioner was unfit for the job of a driver. By enclosing the said certificate, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner also submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner was discharged from service by the impugned order dated 19.8.2004. Hence the present writ petition. 3. By enclosing the said certificate, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner also submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner was discharged from service by the impugned order dated 19.8.2004. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into force and in terms of Section 47 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot be discharged from the post, but he should be offered alternate employment with pay scale and service protection. In this context, the learned counsel would rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in "KUNAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA (2003 AIR SCW 1013)". According to the learned counsel, in view of the protection under Section 47, the impugned order of discharge is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to alternative employment with same pay scale and other service benefits. 4. Per contra, Mr.R.Siva Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that though under Section 47, if an employee, after acquiring disability is found unsuitable to the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. However, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department dated 2.7.81, the petitioner could be appointed as fresh entrant only in the scale of pay or consolidated pay admissible to the new post. The right of the Corporation to place reliance on the said Government Order for the purpose of appointment as a fresh entrant is protected under Section 72 of the Act. 5. In view of the above rival submissions, the following issues arise for consideration. (i) Whether an employee who acquires disability during his service and was found unsuitable for the post he was holding is entitled to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits in terms of Section 47 of the Act? (ii) Whether after the enactment of the Act the respondent-Corporation could still rely upon G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department dated 2.7.81? 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an employee entitled to the benefit of the Act and the respondent Corporation is an establishment as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. (ii) Whether after the enactment of the Act the respondent-Corporation could still rely upon G.O.Ms.No.746, Transport Department dated 2.7.81? 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an employee entitled to the benefit of the Act and the respondent Corporation is an establishment as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. As the petitioner has a defective vision in his eyes, the disability could be brought under the definition of Section 2(i)(ii)(t) and (u). In the circumstances, the provisions of the Act vis-Ã -vis the right of the Corporation to rely upon the Government Order should be considered. 7. The right of the petitioner to continue in employment shall be considered with reference to his right to livelihood. Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: "Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty: - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 8. Article 21 protects "the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life". Such right includes the right to live with human dignity. Such human dignity could be achieved only if there is a protection to the employment, of course, subject to disciplinary proceedings. 9. The Supreme Court, while considering the absorption of an employee who is physically incapacitated due to the disease while in service, in "NARENDRA KUMAR CHANDLA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (1994) 4 SCC 460 )" has held as follows: - "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. Asking the appellant to discharge the duties as a carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a matriculate, he is eligible for the post of LDC. For LDC, 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 LDC. 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 LDC. 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 LDC we direct the respondent to appoint him to the post of LDC protecting his scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary." 10. Keeping the disability sustained by the employee while in service and the possibility of the employee losing his livelihood in mind, the Legislature enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 47 of the said Act reads 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 same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that 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 earlier. (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." 11. Section 47(1) is clear in terms that "no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service. In fact under Section 47(2) there is a right conferred to a person who sustained disablement even for promotion and no establishment shall deny promotion to a person merely on the ground of his disability. Section 47(1) is clear in terms that "no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service. In fact under Section 47(2) there is a right conferred to a person who sustained disablement even for promotion and no establishment shall deny promotion to a person merely on the ground of his disability. In fact, the scope of Section 47 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh's case (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held thus: - "An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires disability during his service". The Section further provides 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; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. 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 purposes of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plan and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service." 12. Language of Section 47 is plan and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service." 12. The right to livelihood which is an integral facet of right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 coupled with the protection under Section 47 of the Act, entitles an employee who was incapacitated during service for continuance of service in a suitable alternative post with same scale of pay drawn by him and service benefits. Accordingly, issue number one is answered. 13. Coming to the issue number two, the Government Order relied upon by the respondent Corporation reads as under: - GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT State Transport Undertakings-Employees invalidated on Medical grounds due to eye defect or any other ailment- Provision of alternative employment-Orders-issued. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.746 Dated: 2.7.1981 Tharumathi, Aani-18 Thiruvalluvar Andu-2012 ORDER: - During the budget session, held on 27.4.1981, the Minister (Transport) announced inter alia in the Legislative Assembly that the workers who are declared unfit for continuance in the same posts by Doctors, while in service, because of eye defect or any other ailments, will be provided with alternative employment in the posts like "Helpers", afresh depending upon their qualifications, experience and suitability for the new post, after settling their service benefits. 2. The Government accordingly direct that the workers in the State Transport Undertakings who are declared unfit for the continuance in the same posts, by Doctors, while in service because of the eye defect or any other ailments, be discharged on medical grounds and their service benefits settled. They should be subsequently provided with alternative employment in posts like "Helpers" depending upon their qualification and experience and suitability for the new posts, without consulting Employment Exchange. They should be appointed as fresh entrants only in the scale of pay or consolidated pay admissible to the new posts and their services terminated on the date on which they attain the age of superannuation. 3. This order issued with the concurrence of the Labour & Employment Department vide its U.O.No.26648/N1/81-1, dt. 23.6.1981. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT The above said Order issued by the Government was only executive instructions, which are in the nature of general guidelines. 3. This order issued with the concurrence of the Labour & Employment Department vide its U.O.No.26648/N1/81-1, dt. 23.6.1981. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT The above said Order issued by the Government was only executive instructions, which are in the nature of general guidelines. As per the said Government Order, it was directed that the workers, who acquired any eye defect or any other ailment while in service, will be provided with alternative employment in the posts like "Helpers", afresh depending upon their qualifications, experience and suitability for the new post, after settling their service benefits and they should be appointed as fresh entrants only in the scale of pay or consolidated pay admissible to the new posts and their services terminated on the date on which they attain the age of superannuation. 14. Section 72 of the Act reads as under: - "72. Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. -- The provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder, enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities." Placing reliance on the said section, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would submit that the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or instructions issued thereunder enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities. Inasmuch as the Act provides the application of the Government Order even after the enactment, the respondent-Corporation would be justified in applying the Government Order for consideration of an employee who acquired a disability during his service for alternative employment strictly in accordance with the guidelines contained in the said Government Order. 15. Scope of Section 47 came up for consideration in a case of a conductor employed in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation who acquired disability was terminated. A Division Bench of this Court in "METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. 15. Scope of Section 47 came up for consideration in a case of a conductor employed in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation who acquired disability was terminated. A Division Bench of this Court in "METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DIVISION-I, CHENNAI v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI & ANOTHER (2004 W.L.R.398)" held that the Act is a beneficial enactment and the conductor was entitled to alternate employment and protected under Section 47 of the Act. It appears that the Government Order dated 2.7.81 was also relied upon and the Division Bench in paragraph 17 observed that "the order of the Government of the year 1981 on which the appellant relies being an order which is clearly inconsistent with the Act certainly cannot be given effect to and the Government is duty bound to implement the provisions of the Act". 16. A perusal of the Division Bench order shows that though a reference is made as to the Government Order, neither the provisions of Section 72 nor the applicability of the same after the Act has come into force was either advanced or discussed with reference to Section 72 of the Act. Hence it is necessary for this Court to consider the applicability of the Government Order vis-a-vis the Act. It is well settled law that while enactments are made, repealing and saving clauses are introduced to validate the action taken or to continue to give effect to the existing provisions. In this context, Section 72 of the Act is referable. The said Section contemplates that the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules or order or instructions issued thereunder. To press Section 72 into service, an order or instruction ought to have been made either under any law or the rules made thereunder which were in force on the date the Act came into force. The Government Order is only an executive instruction and is not made under any of the provisions of the Act or rules. To press Section 72 into service, an order or instruction ought to have been made either under any law or the rules made thereunder which were in force on the date the Act came into force. The Government Order is only an executive instruction and is not made under any of the provisions of the Act or rules. Though the Government Order was made in exercise of the executive powers by the State, still, such general executive instructions could be enforced in certain circumstances, provided they do not conflict with the existing law or the law made thereafter and such executive instructions cannot override the law enacted by the Parliament. 17. A plain reading of Section 72 shows that the Act or rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the law for the time being in force or the rules or instructions issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities. By the words "for the benefits of persons with disabilities" employed under Section 72, the provisions of any Act or rules or orders or instructions existed on the date of Central Act and which are beneficial to the disabled persons are alone saved. As a necessary corollary, if any act, rule, order or instruction issued thereunder which are not beneficial to the disabled persons are not saved as they amount to deprivation of the benefits under the Act. Section 47 contemplates that an employee who is found unsuitable for the post he was holding in view of the disability could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The right of an employee who acquired disability and consequently found unsuitable for the post he was holding is entitled to be shifted to some other post and his pay scale and service benefits are protected. Such benefits conferred under Section 47 cannot be either deprived of or taken away by placing reliance on Section 72 of the Act and consequently the Government Order empowering the Corporation to make only fresh appointment with the scale of pay or consolidated pay cannot be pressed into service. In my opinion, Section 72 does not empower the Corporation to make fresh appointment only either with a new pay scale or consolidated pay by placing reliance on the Government Order. In my opinion, Section 72 does not empower the Corporation to make fresh appointment only either with a new pay scale or consolidated pay by placing reliance on the Government Order. The Act is a beneficial legislation and the right to employment is protected as the right to livelihood which is an integral facet of right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. The Act being a special enactment, doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply and the Government Order dated 2.7.81 cannot override the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. 18. Accordingly, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent. The impugned order of discharge is, therefore, unsustainable and the same is set aside. The respondent Corporation shall consider the petitioner for any other suitable job with the protection of pay scale and service benefits and the alternate employment shall be subject to availability of vacancy. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.2433 of 2005 is closed.