Judgment : J. Chelameswar, C.J. 1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 14.7.2010 in W.P. (C). No. 19589 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioner in the Writ Petition preferred this appeal. The appellant is an employee of the first respondent, a State owned Corporation. He was employed as a rubber tapper. It is recorded in the judgment in appeal that, the appellant underwent Supra Coronary Ascending Aortic replacement with Aortic Valve replacement (Open Heart Surgery) in the year, 2009. It is certified in Ext.P3 that, the consequential disability of the appellant is assessed at 65%. In view of the disability, the appellant prayed that, he may be assigned to some lighter work, as contemplated under S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The respondents issued Ext.P4 order directing the appellant to render field work. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the Writ Petition with the prayers as follows: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P8 order issued by respondent No. 1. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to grant category change/working arrangement to the petitioner either as peon/watchman or such other light duty office work than field work taking into account of Exts. P2 and P3 medical certificates and Ext.P6 judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the light of protection under S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. (iii) To issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be granted protection under S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and entitled to get category change/working arrangement either as peon/watchman or such other light duty office work than field work taking into account of Exts. P2 and P3 medical certificates and Ext.P6 judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court dehors service rules, if any, framed by the Corporation and denial of the same is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and (iv) To mould and grant such other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs. 2. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that, the appellant does not suffer from any disability contemplated under the above mentioned Act and therefore S.47 of the above mentioned Act has no application. It may be mentioned herein that, the specific ground urged by the appellant in the Writ Petition is that, he suffers from locomotor disability, which is one of the disabilities contemplated under S.2(i) of the above mentioned Act. 3. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is an enactment made pursuant to a proclamation made in an international conference. Pursuant to the obligation incurred at the said conference, India made the above mentioned law. The Parliament enacted the said law in the year 1996, which came into force w.e.f. 7.2.1996. Various protective steps are contemplated under the Scheme of the Act viz. the State is obligated to take steps for identifying the causes for occurrence of the disabilities and promotes the methods for preventing the disabilities; provide reservation in the educational institutions as well as for employment in the establishments of the State. One of the specific protection contemplated in S. 47 of the Act is that, an employee of the establishment, who acquires disability during his service, should not be reduced in rank nor his services be dispensed with S.47 reads as follows: 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 the same pay scale and service benefits; Provided further that 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 establishement, 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. (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 establishement, 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. The proviso to sub-section (1) stipulates that, if an employee acquires any disability and becomes unsuitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same scale of pay and service benefits. The second proviso stipulates that, wherever it is not possible to adjust such an employee in any post, he may be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation. 4. The benefit of S.47 is applicable to the employees, who suffer a disability during the course of their service in an establishment. The expression “establishment” is defined under S.2(k) as follows: 2(k) “establishment” means a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of a Government. The respondent do not dispute that the first respondent is an establishment within the meaning of the above mentioned definition. The dispute centers around the question whether the appellant acquired a disability within the meaning of the Act and if the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, what are the rights of the appellant. 5. The expression “disability” is defined under S.2(i) as follows: 2(i). “disability” means’ (i) blindness; (ii) low vision (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability (vi) mental retardation (vii) mental illness The claim of the appellant is that, he suffers a locomotor disability. The expression “locomotor disability” in turn is defined under S.2(o), which reads as follows: 2(o). “Locomotor disability” means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy; It can be seen from the above definition that the locomotor disability means among other things, the disability of muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs. 6. “Locomotor disability” means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy; It can be seen from the above definition that the locomotor disability means among other things, the disability of muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs. 6. The disability, which the appellant suffers resulted from a surgery to the heart on 22.4.2009. It is certified in Ext.P3 that, the disability suffered by the appellant is 65%. According to the New Oxford dictionary hear is “a hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation”. Therefore, in our opinion, the disability pertains to the muscles of the heart. Hence, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the disability of the appellant is not locomotor disability. 7. Coming to the question as to what are the legal consequences of the appellant’s suffering locomotor disability. As we are already noticed under S.47, the service of the appellant could not be dispensed with nor his rank could be reduced by the employer, on the ground that, he suffers a disability. The very fact that the employer decided to shift the appellant from the post of rubber tapper to field work clearly indicates that even the employer is of the opinion that the appellant is not suitable for the post which he was holding prior to the sufferance of the disability. The appellant claims that he may be accommodated against the post of peon/watcher in the office of the first respondent, By a communication dated 3.6.2010, the respondents declined the request of the appellant, on the ground that, the post claimed by the appellant falls under the category which is required to be filled up only through the Public Service Commission and therefore cannot be offered to the appellant. 8. We do not propose to examine the accuracy of the statement that the post of peon/watcher in the first respondent Corporation requires to be filled up only through the Public Service Commission, but we accept the statement of the respondent for the purpose of the present case. 8. We do not propose to examine the accuracy of the statement that the post of peon/watcher in the first respondent Corporation requires to be filled up only through the Public Service Commission, but we accept the statement of the respondent for the purpose of the present case. Even then, in our opinion, such a stipulation made by the State does not override the obligations created under S.47 of the above mentioned act, as it is a law made by the Parliament, pursuant to the treaty obligation incurred by the country. Therefore, by virtue of Art. 253 of the Constitution of India. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act prevails the law made by the State. We have already noticed, under S.47, that a person who acquires disability during the course of his service, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. We, therefore, direct the respondents to accommodate the appellant in a post of either Peon or Watcher and for any reason such a post is not available, the appellant shall be accommodated in a supernumerary post, as contemplated under second proviso to S.47(1) of the Act, for implementing this order. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.