Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed by an employee of the Metro Transport Corporation, Chennai, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide light duty to him w.e.f. 01.06.1999 in the same scale of pay and other benefits, which he was getting prior to the paralytic attack suffered by him. 2. Factual matrix necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as under :- (a) The petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as driver on 11.03.1981 and on completion of six years of service, he was promoted and designated as senior driver. While so, on 012. 1998 when he was about to move from his residence to report for duty, he suffered a paralytic attack on the right side of the body and became unconscious and he fell down in the floor. Thereafter, he took treatment in the hospital for a number of days and after treatment, he reported before the Medical Officer of the Corporation on 04.01.1999. After examination by the Medical Officer, he was referred to the Government Hospital for further treatment. Subsequently, he was discharged on 18.01.1999 and after physiotherapy treatment, he regained his movement on the right side of the body except lingering in voice to a small extent. Thereafter, he continued his treatment in Government Hospital, Tambaram by taking periodical examinations. (b) After recovering from the illness, the petitioner reported before the Medical Officer of the Corporation at Tiruvanmiyur and sought for Medical Fitness Certificate for joining duty. However, the Doctor informed him that he was not fit for driving bus and informed further that he can do only light duty. Therefore, he was directed to approach the Management for giving light duty and the Medical Officer refused to issue Medical Fitness Certificate so as to enable the petitioner to join duty as driver. (c) Subsequently, the petitioner as per representation dated 17.04.1999 requested the respondent to provide employment but there was no reply from the respondent. The petitioner also obtained a Medical Certificate dated 01.06.1999, certifying that he was fit for light duty. However, the respondent failed to provide employment to the petitioner. (d) While so, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent directing him to meet the Branch Manager immediately and accordingly, he met the said Official on 211. 1999. The petitioner also obtained a Medical Certificate dated 01.06.1999, certifying that he was fit for light duty. However, the respondent failed to provide employment to the petitioner. (d) While so, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent directing him to meet the Branch Manager immediately and accordingly, he met the said Official on 211. 1999. However, the Branch Manager instead of providing him light duty, compelled him to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and insisted for a letter to that effect. The petitioner expressed his difficulty in taking voluntary retirement and further requested the respondent to provide him light duty so as to maintain his family. However, the respondent failed to take any follow up action in the matter and as such, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 3. Even though Rule Nisi was ordered as early as on 012. 1999, respondent has not filed counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition till date. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents are bound to provide the petitioner with light duty as he was not able to perform his duty as a driver on account of the paralyt. attack. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of alternative employment as per Sec. 47 of the Act 1/1996 and the respondent is not justified in their failure to give alternative employment to the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffered paralytic attack on 012. 1998, when he was about to proceed for work as a driver and after treatment, the Medical Officer of the Corporation certified that the petitioner was unfit for performing the work of a driver. Even though the petitioner has time and again requested the respondent to provide him light duty, the same has not been considered by the respondent, which made the petitioner to file the present with petition. 6. It is found from the Government Order in G.O. Ms. Even though the petitioner has time and again requested the respondent to provide him light duty, the same has not been considered by the respondent, which made the petitioner to file the present with petition. 6. It is found from the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 746 dated 02.07.1981 that the Government have taken a decision to the effect that the workers in the state Transport undertaking who were declared unfit for continuance in the same post by Doctors while in service because of eye defect or any other ailment should be provided with alternative employment in post like "Helpers", depending upon their qualification and experience and suitability for such posts, without consulting the Employment Exchange. Subsequently, there was another Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 86 dated 08.02.1996 whereby the Government took a decision that if any driver is declared unfit for continuance in the same post by Doctors because of eye defect or any other ailment, he will be provided with alternative employment in posts like helpers of office assistants depending upon their qualification and by retaining the very same pay scale. 7. Even though these two Government Orders were in operation and the Government Order in G.O. No. 746 was applicable to the petitioner, the respondents for reasons best known to them have failed to act as per the Government Order and harassed the petitioner for all these years. It was only on account of the total indifferent attitude adopted by the respondent that the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the writ petition. 8. It is only as a laudable purpose to rehabilitate a person with disability during his employment that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, has been enacted. Sec. 2 defines the various disabilities within the meaning of the said Act and Sec. 47 provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired disability during his service and the said provision reads thus: "47. Sec. 2 defines the various disabilities within the meaning of the said Act and Sec. 47 provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired disability during his service and the said provision reads thus: "47. Non discrimination in Government employments: (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 condition, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section". .9. In case the disability of the employee falls within any of the cases as found mentioned under Sec. 2 of the Act, the said employee would come under the purview of Sec.7. Act 1/1996 being a beneficial piece of legislation must be given a liberal interpretation. The respondent Corporation having utilized the service of the petitioner in his early age and better time, should extend their helping hand to him to tide over the difficulties, when he is put in an adverse circumstance. Being a Corporation fully controlled by the State Government, the respondent should act like a model employer, treating the employees as their family members. In case of developing a very cordial relationship and a motherly attitude towards the employees, the respondent would be able to extract more work from them. Therefore, the attempt of the employers like the respondent should be to make use of the welfare legislation for the betterment of the employees. 10. The Apex Court is Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another, ( 2003 (4) SCC 524 ), considered the scope and ambit of Sec. 47 of Act 1/96 and held thus:- 8. Therefore, the attempt of the employers like the respondent should be to make use of the welfare legislation for the betterment of the employees. 10. The Apex Court is Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another, ( 2003 (4) SCC 524 ), considered the scope and ambit of Sec. 47 of Act 1/96 and held thus:- 8. The need for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and to help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. To realize the objective that people with disabilities should have equal opportunities and keeping their hopes and aspirations in view a meeting called the "Meet to Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disable Persons" was held in Beijing in the first week of December 1992 by the Asian and Pacific countries to ensure "full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific regions". This meeting was held by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific. A proclamation was adopted in the said meeting. India was a signatory to the said proclamation and agreed to give effect to the same. Pursuant thereto this Act was enacted, which came into force on 1-1-1996. The Act provides some sort of succour to the disabled persons. .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. 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 "no 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 disable 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." 10. In A. Veeriya Perumal v. Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Dept., Chennai, ( 2006 (4) MLJ 335 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that the right of the employee to continue in employment shall be considered with reference to his right to livelihood and observed thus: "7. The right of the appellant 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. The right of the appellant 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. … 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 Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 entitles the employee who was incapacitated during service for continuance of service in suitable alternative post with same scale of pay drawn by him and other service benefits." 11. Similarly, in Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kanchipuram v. B. Gnanasekaran, ( 2007 (5) MLJ 1 ), a Division Bench of this Court. considered the distinct nature of the provisions as contained in Sec. 2 and Sec. 47 and held thus:- "9. In the light of the decision in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and anr., 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 Singh v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who rendered the Judgment in General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. A. Sengaan (supra). 12. It seems that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who rendered the Judgment in General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. A. Sengaan (supra). 12. In Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., v. K. Ravichandran 2005(2) LLN 869: (2005) 2 MLJ 539 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the words "who acquires a disability during his service" in Sec. 47 of the Disabilities Act mean that the disability should be acquired while in employment and it is not necessary that it should be acquired while performing his work. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of a Division Bench in the State v. K. Mohammed Mustafa 2007 WLR 256, where the Division Bench has held that the benefit envisaged under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act can be considered in addition to the benefits contemplated under the Government Order. If in a given case the provisions contained in the G.O. are more beneficial as compared to the provisions contained in the G.O., benefit of such Act can be made available. 17. ... 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. Sengaan (Supra) does not lay down the correct law." 13. There is no doubt that the Act is applicable to the respondent Corporation. The respondent is a State Corporation and the relevant Government Orders referred to above are also equally applicable to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was not justified in not considering the case of the petitioner for the purpose of alternative employment so as to provide him with means for surviving the later part of his life. The respondent failed to consider the case of the employee even in the face of the two Government Orders as well as the statutory enactment in Act 1/1996. 14. In view of the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for alternative employment in the respondent Corporation. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.