JUDGMENT : Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed in W.P. No. 3468 of 2006, which was filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the file of the appellants 1 and 2 and quash the orders dated 28.1.2002 and 26.11.2004 passed by the appellants 1 and 2 respectively and for a direction to the third appellant to pay the pension arrears with statutory interest 18% p.a. From June 2001 onwards. The respondent herein while working as a Driver in the appellant Corporation, was affected by paralytic attack on 5.8.1997 for which he also underwent a surgery on 7.9.1997. When he submitted his medical bills along with Discharge Summary, the same was not sanctioned. Further, he was found not fit by the Medical Board to perform the duty as a Driver. It is stated by the respondent that though he made a representation for alternate employment, the same went in vain. On the other hand, a show cause notice dated 7.8.1998 was issued to him as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds for which the respondent submitted reply on 14.9.1998. The grievance of the respondent before the learned single Judge was that without considering his reply seeking for alternate employment, to the show cause notice, he was discharged from service with one month salary in lieu of notice. The same was challenged by the respondent in I.D. No. 41 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Salem in which an Award was passed on 21.7.2003 directing his appearance before the Medical Board. The Labour Court further held that based on the opinion of the Medical Board, if the respondent is found fit, he should be provided with employment without back wages, continuity of service treating him as a fresh entrant. Subsequently, the Medical Board found him unfit for any post in the Transport Corporation. It is further stated that during the pendency of the I.D., the respondent was sanctioned pension from the date of discharge by order dated 6.7.2001 and thereafter, that was also withheld. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. Subsequently, the Medical Board found him unfit for any post in the Transport Corporation. It is further stated that during the pendency of the I.D., the respondent was sanctioned pension from the date of discharge by order dated 6.7.2001 and thereafter, that was also withheld. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. Learned single Judge, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed thereon, disposed of the writ petition holding that discharge of the respondent from service on 8.9.1998 without providing alternate employment is illegal as he should be treated as unfit to hold any post from 31.5.2004, the date on which the Medical Board found him unfit. The learned Judge further directed the authorities to consider the claim of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present writ appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation reiterating the very same contentions raised before the learned single Judge, contended that the respondent was discharged from service as he was unable to perform any duty and there is no illegality in the said order of discharge. He further submitted that though the new pension scheme came into existence from 1.9.1998, the orders implementing the scheme was ordered only in December 2000 and the respondent was discharged from service on medical invalidation on 8.9.1998 as per the Rules existed at that time. He further submitted that the respondent was on long leave and as he is not eligible to get pension, it was withheld from 1.6.2001. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge, without considering these aspects, directed the Management to pay pension to the respondent workman from 1.6.2004 and sought for interference of this Court. 5. The stand of the appellant Corporation overlooks the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (For short, 'Equal Opportunity Act'). u/s 47 of the Equal Opportunity Act, there is a legal bar for discharging any person on the ground of physical disability. This Court in more than one judgment had dealt with the scope of the Equal Opportunity Act. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment in The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd. Vs. This Court in more than one judgment had dealt with the scope of the Equal Opportunity Act. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment in The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd. Vs. B. Gnanasekaran, (2007) 5 MLJ 1 had elaborately dealt with this aspect. 6. It is seen from the order under challenge that the learned single Judge, relying upon a decision of this Court in Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division - III) Ltd., Kancheepuram v. B. Gnanasekaran (supra), held that the respondent would be covered by the provisions of Section 47 of the said Act. The learned Judge further held that immediately after securing the Medical Report, the first appellant ought to have given alternate employment to him in terms of Section 47 of the Act 1 of 1996 besides observing that the discharge of the respondent from service from 8.9.1998 without providing alternate employment is illegal. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 524 has clearly held that acquisition of disability is not the same as a person with disability. There is no dispute that the Disabilities Act applies to establishment of the appellant/Corporation and this establishment is not exempted under any notification issued u/s 47 of the Act. 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. 8. The learned Judge, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another (supra) and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and S. Ashok Kumar, (2004) 2 MLJ 712 , A. Veeriya Perumal Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, (2006) 4 MLJ 335 and Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and S. Ashok Kumar, (2004) 2 MLJ 712 , A. Veeriya Perumal Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, (2006) 4 MLJ 335 and Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Ravichandran, (2005) 2 LLJ 926 held that the termination of the services of the respondent/workman was in violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as 'Disabilities Act') and directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman with pay protection, continuity of service and back wages. 9. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent was discharged from service on the basis of the medical opinion that he is unfit for any post in the Transport Corporation. But it is clear from the records that the respondent was found unfit due to paralysis attack on completion of 14 years 6 months and 14 days service under the appellant Corporation and as such, he is entitled for retirement pension as per Clause 10 of the Standing Orders of the appellant Corporation, Moreover, when the same facts were available as on the date of granting pension, it is not disclosed as to how he was granted pension before withholding the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the further proceedings withholding the pension were initiated behind the back of the respondent, which is against the principles of natural justice. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the decisions of this Court and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the learned single Judge has not committed any error in holding that the respondent would be covered by the provisions of Section 47 of the said Act. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.