ORDER 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned circular dated 3.4.2002 ‘in Ku. No. Nee.Maa.Vaa / 15017/Sattm/TNTC (See Ko.2) 2001, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to provide an alternative job to the petitioner in the respondent corporation based on his last representation dated 10.9.2007, with all monetary benefits in the above writ petition and to pass such further or other orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined service as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in November 1986 and was allotted staff C.R. 5046 and during the course of employment he met with an accident on 7.9.2000 and was hospitalised as he sustained fracture in his left leg and therefore, applied leave from 8.9.2000 to 6.4.2001. The Transport Corporation directed him to appear before the Medical Board and the Medical Board opined that the petitioner is not fit for the post of Conductor and based on the said Medical Board’s report, petitioner was discharged from service on 2.8.2001. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2204 of 2002 to provide alternative job as per G.O. No. 746, Transport Department, dated 2.7.1991. The writ petition was disposed of on 1.2.2002 directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 13.8.2001 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner sent a representation dated 11.3.2002 along with the order copy to provide alternative job. In spite of the said order, no alternate employment was given to the petitioner and hence he filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for/the petitioner as well as the respondents. 4. The point in issue is whether the petitioner having admittedly sustained disability during the course of employment, is entitled to get alternate employment under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 5. The facts in this case are not in dispute and till date no alternative appointment was given to the petitioner in spite of the order of the Special Commissioner for Disabled in Case No. 5 of 2002 dated 24.1.2005. 6. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 reads as follows: “Section 47. 6. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 reads as follows: “Section 47. Non-Discrimination of 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 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 ha 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.” 7. The applicability of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, to the Transport Corporation employees was considered by this Court in the following decisions: (i) Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and Another (2004) 2 MLJ 712 : 2004 WLR 398 (DB) (ii) P. Thangamarimuthu v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division-I, Madurai. (2006) 1 MLJ 452 : 2006 (1) CTC 124 (iii) G. Muthu v. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai (2006) 4 MLJ 1669 : 2006 (5) CTC 413 (DB) (iv) Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd., Kancheepuram v. B. Gnanasekaran (2007) 5 MLJ 1 (DB) (v) Unreported judgment of Division Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 436 of 2007 dated 9.10.2007 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited, Kumbakonam v. M. Kamaraj. The above said judgments were rendered on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1623 : (2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003-II- LLJ-735 , wherein in paragraph 9, it is held thus at p. 738 of LLJ: “9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of disability” and “person with disability.” It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 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 the Section reads who establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a 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 a 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.” 8. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service.” 8. The contra view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 96 of 2007 dated 26.4.2007 in General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. A. Sengaan, was found as not laying down the correct law, in that latest decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd., Kancheepuram v. B. Gnanasekaran (supra), wherein in paragraph 17 the Division Bench held as follows at p. 9 of MLJ: “17. In the 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 Court’s decision in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another (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 General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. A. Sengaan (supra) does not lay down the correct law.” In the said judgment, while upholding my order, the Division Bench directed to implement the order in the writ petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment, i.e., of 10.7.2007. I am also informed that the said order was complied with by the Transport Corporation. 9. In the light of the above settled position with regard to providing alternate employment to the persons, who sustain disability while in service, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to get alternate employment in the same scale of pay with promotional benefits from the date of his discharge. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in any one of the alternate post in terms of Section 47 of the Parsons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in any one of the alternate post in terms of Section 47 of the Parsons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The arrears of pay and other benefits payable to the petitioner shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. Mo costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.