Judgment :- The petitioner is a driver. On being referred to the Medical Board for testing the eye sight of the petitioner, he was informed that the Medical Board reported by a communication dated 19.11.2004 that he is unfit to drive any vehicle. In view of the Medical Boards recommendation and as the petitioner was also eligible to get pension, the respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 28.02.2007 as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. It is this show cause notice which was challenged in the Writ Petition. 2. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim order on 19.06.2007. The respondents filed a vacate stay application No.3 of 2007 and the petitioner filed a direction application No.4 of 2007 to provide employment to him. 3. In the counter affidavit filed in support of the vacate stay application, there is no reference to the orders passed by this Court in several Writ Petitions including several Division Bench Judgments of this Court. A vague reference is made to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 being not applicable to the petitioner. Because, according to the Corporation, a person with disability means a person suffers from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by the Medical Board. The petitioner was not certified to be a qualified person, pursuant to the medical boards recommendation, so as to come within the meaning of Section 2(i)(v) of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995. The person with disability Act being applicable does not arise and they state that the show cause notice was given in terms of certified Standing Order 18(a). 4. This actionof the respondent is contumacious, as they were deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court which is binding on them. In many cases, the respondent Corporation is also facing contempt and they are yet to be discharged from those contempt proceedings. In fact, by a latest judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.860 of 2007 dated 10.07.2007, in the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. B. Gnanasekaran dealt with an identical case. In many cases, the respondent Corporation is also facing contempt and they are yet to be discharged from those contempt proceedings. In fact, by a latest judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.860 of 2007 dated 10.07.2007, in the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. B. Gnanasekaran dealt with an identical case. The relevant passages found in Paras 4,14 & 17 are extracted here under:- "In the light of the decision in Kunal Singhs case, it is clear that Section 47 deals with an employee who has acquired disability during service and it is not necessary that he should have suffered 40% disability. The test is whether an employee, after acquiring disability, has become unsuitable for the post he was holding earlier and it is provided by Section 47 that in such a case, the employee could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits and if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any such post, he may be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It seems that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singhs case was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who rendered the judgment in A.Senganns case (supra). 14. It seems that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singhs case was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who rendered the judgment in A.Senganns case (supra). 14. Ina batch of Writ Petitions being W.P.No.409 of 2004 and other connected matters decided on 06.01.2006, one of us (P.Jyothimani,J.) has held that the purport of the Disabilities Act is to give effect to the Proclamation of Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian Pacific Region held in Beijing in the first week of December,1992, to which our country is a signatory, which was intended with a proclamation in the following terms: "i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities: (ii) to create barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits vis-a-vis non-disabled persons; (iv) to counteract any situation of abuse and exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social maintenance" It was held that in view of the object of the Disabilities Act, the contention that alternate employment will be given as and when vacancy arises and in such an event, the employee would be treated as a new entrant has to be rejected. It was also held that there is no necessity for any certificate from a medical authority as contemplated under Section 2(t) or Section 2(p) of the Disabilities Act. 17. Inthe instant case the respondent workman became unfit for the duty of the driver as he lost knee movement and there is no possibility of regaining his normal movement. It is not disputed before us that the workman is suffering from locomotor disability within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Disabilities Act. In view of the Supreme Courts decision in Kunal Singhs Case (supra) it is clear that the acquisition of disability is not the same as a person with disability and it was not necessary for the workman to establish that he suffer more than 40% disability. In view of the Supreme Courts decision in Kunal Singhs Case (supra) it is clear that the acquisition of disability is not the same as a person with disability and it was not necessary for the workman to establish that he suffer more than 40% disability. In our considered opinion the decision of the Division Bench in Senganns Case (supra) does not lay down the correct law. 5. In fact, the so called 40% disability being a conditions required was squarely rejected by the Division Bench in that case. If the Corporation is not able to obey the terms of the decisions of this Court and if it is not implemented, serious action will be taken against the Officers of the Corporation. 6. In the light of the Judgment of this Court cited supra, the impugned show cause notice will stand quashed. The respondent Corporation is hereby directed to give an alternative employment to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order will full pay protection and report compliance to this Court. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.