Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. In the judgment rendered by me in the batch of Writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 409 of 2004 etc., dated 06.01.2006, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunalsingh v. Union of India and another Kunalsingh v. Union of India and another Kunalsingh v. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 1623 : 2003-II-LLJ-735 : (2005) 4 SCC 524, I have held that as per Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, any person acquired disability during the course of employment either inconsequence of the nature of employment or otherwise, the “disability” as defined under Section 2 (i) of the Act, is to be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits and even in cases where it is not possible to adjust the employe against any post he should be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier. 3. I have also held that the Act has come into force on 7.2.1996 and any employee who was discharged thereafter on account of the disability acquired is vested with such right. 4. I have also held that in Para. 29 of the said judgment while deciding about the term disability under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is different form the term “person with disability” defined under 2(t) of the Act and only in respect of those cases where, person who is not in employment seeking the benefit under the Act in respect of schemes promulgated therein, the certificate of medical authority contemplated under the Act is required. However, in respect of the persons who are already in services who have acquired disability during employment there was no necessity for producing a certificate from medical authority contemplated under Section 2(p) of the said Act. 5. However, in respect of the persons who are already in services who have acquired disability during employment there was no necessity for producing a certificate from medical authority contemplated under Section 2(p) of the said Act. 5. Apart form many other reasons, I have come to the said conclusion on the basis that the various disabilities mentioned under Section 2 (i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, have been independently defined under the definition clause itself and therefore construing the said provision as a beneficial legislation. I have held that finding of any authority about said disabilities is sufficient for the purpose of the Act. 6. The relevant passage in the judgment are “Therefore in my considered view, the contentions of the learned counsels that unless and until a certificate issued by the competent authority contemplated under the Act is given, the benefits under Section 47 of the Act cannot be claimed is an untenable argument. Further as laid down by the Supreme Court, the beneficial legislation like Act 1 of 1996 must be construed with the object of the Act and its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the objects and paralyses the purpose. Therefore, the finding of any authority about disability is sufficient for the purpose of the Act”. 7. Even though, it is true that the certificate of the medical authority as prescribed under the Act is not necessary for the purpose of conferring benefit under Section 47(1) of the said Act, there must be some certificate to prove that the person has suffered any one of the disabilities mentioned under Section 2 (i) of the Act, by construing the definition of various disabilities explained by way of definition under Section 2 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Therefore touch stone to decide about the disability explained in the medical certificate is Section 2 (i) itself. 8. Therefore touch stone to decide about the disability explained in the medical certificate is Section 2 (i) itself. 8. In cases where the certificate produced by a medical board or any of the authority for the purpose of stating that a person is unfit due to the medical reason, is unable to be construed as a disability under the above said Act, it is always open to the employer to refer such employee for a fresh certificate to show whether the disabilities comes within the meaning of the said Act namely Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, for, under the said Act person having disability but those disabilities which are defined therein alone are entitled to the benefits of section 47(1) of the Act. 9. In this case, the regional Medical Board, namely the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramnad has stated as follows : “Appeared before medical board on 24.4.2000. Echo egecstion fraction 40% Hypolunetic LV apex intraventricular spectrum X-ray chest cardiomegaly. Old Anteroseptal infraction. He is not fit to do strenuous work e.g. conductor.” A perusal of the report does not show as to whether the petitioner suffered from in anyone of the disabilities mentioned under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Even though the petitioner would state in the counter affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment the certificate does not show as to whether the petitioner comes within the meaning of the disabilities under Section 2(i) of the Act. Even though I have held in the above said judgment that it is a beneficial legislation which has to be construed liberally such construction should be in consonance with the previous Act. The disability is defined as exhaustive definition and every one of the 8 disabilities mentioned therein have been independently defined in various sub sections of the 2 of the Act. On perusing that it will be seen that the heart ailment has not been included. Since the term disability is exhaustive definition one has to construe that the makers of law have not inclined to give the benefit under the Act to the persons who have acquired those disabilities during the employment even through they may be eligible for other benefits. 10. Since the term disability is exhaustive definition one has to construe that the makers of law have not inclined to give the benefit under the Act to the persons who have acquired those disabilities during the employment even through they may be eligible for other benefits. 10. In view of the fact that the certificate does not disclose what is the disability suffered by the petitioner and to find out whether the disability suffered is in accordance with section 2 (i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the respondent is directed to send the petitioner to the medical Board again for a detailed medical report to identify the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner and thereafter pass orders conferring the benefits on the petitioner under Section 47(1) of the Act, provided that, the petitioner is certified to have suffered a disability as per Section 2 (i) of the Act. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.