JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.: (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No.19305 of 2007. 2. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitioner’s claim to alternative employment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as a driver in the Haryana Roadways. He met with an accident while on duty on 5.2.2005 as a result of which his right leg had to be amputated. Though he continued to remain in employment, eventually in the month of September 2007, it was certified that he was unfit to work as a driver. The petitioner raised a demand for alternative employment under the Act which was refused by the respondents by order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-P.4). Aggrieved by this, the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed. 4. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition thought it proper to refuse the relief sought for by the appellant-writ petitioner on the ground that by notification dated 27.6.2005 issued under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act, drivers and conductors of the Haryana Roadways were exempted from the provisions of the Act. In other words, the learned Single Judge has held that being exempted from the operation of the Act, the petitioner was not entitled to any alternative employment on account of his disability as contemplated by the main part of Section 47 of the Act. 5. There appears to be an apparent fallacy in the manner in which the case of the petitioner has been viewed. 6. The notification exempting drivers and conductors of the Haryana Roadways from the operation of the Act is dated 27.6.2005 whereas the accident, as a result of which the appellant-writ petitioner suffered the disability in question, occurred on 5.2.2005. Obviously, the exemption notification can apply only prospectively and can not have any application to disabilities which had occurred prior to the date of the notification i.e. 27.6.2005. 7. Obviously, the exemption notification can apply only prospectively and can not have any application to disabilities which had occurred prior to the date of the notification i.e. 27.6.2005. 7. Though an attempt has been made on behalf of the State to contend that the actual disability in the present case was declared in September 2007 till which time the appellant-writ petitioner continued to be in employment, we do not find much substance in the said argument. The disability occurred on 5.2.2005 and it is only the declaration of such disability and the extent thereof which was made in September 2007. The said declaration along with the extent of disability is a consequential act. The said date, therefore, cannot be understood to be conclusive for denial of the application of the provisions of Section 47(2) (proviso) of the Act to the facts of the present case. 8. We, therefore, hold that the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to alternative employment under the provisions contained in the main part of Section 47 of the Act, and if required, by creation of a supernumerary post until such time a suitable post can be found for him. 9. The State of Haryana is directed to act accordingly and grant all benefits including consequential benefits that would reasonably flow to the appellant-writ petitioner from the present order. 10. LPA, consequently, is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is interfered with. ------------------