Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent in No.305/DVuB/VaThaAPoKa/2002 dated 19.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondent to take into account the period of service rendered by the petitioner before his medical invalidation and pass such orders. 2. The petitioner originally appointed as conductor on 01.01.1974 on daily rated basis was regularised on 07.05.1974 and confirmed with the post of conductor on 01.05.1976. He was medically invalidated and thereafter, re-appointed as Record Clerk on 08.01.1987 and promoted as Junior Assistant on 02.03.1998 and he retired from service with effect from 31.05.2000 in the post of Junior Assistant. The Provident Fund was deposited to his account continuously till retirement. He was getting pension till December 2001. A lawyer notice was issued for which, the impugned letter has been sent by the Managing Director and the pensionary benefits were stopped from the date of the lawyer notice, which resulted in passing the impugned order, by the Managing Director, on 19.06.2002, stating that since the employee is medically invalidated and subsequently appointed the period before medically invalidation would not be taken into account. The subsequent appointment consequent to medical invalidation should be treated as fresh appointment and the pensionary benefits will be re-calculated on that. This order is under challenge. The respondents have filed a counter justifying the order primarily relying on G.O.Ms.No.746 dated 02.07.1981. 3. Counter has been filed on 24.01.2003. 4. The entire exercise of the respondents appears to be totally contrary to law and based on a G.O. which has no effect in law, in view of the coming into force of the Act, namely, The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act 1 of 1946). 3. Counter has been filed on 24.01.2003. 4. The entire exercise of the respondents appears to be totally contrary to law and based on a G.O. which has no effect in law, in view of the coming into force of the Act, namely, The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act 1 of 1946). Section 47 which is relevant reads hereunder: Non-discrimination in Government employment: (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who requires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not sustainable 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 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 conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. 5. The Act specifically provides that if an employee acquires disability in the post in which he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with protection on pay scale and service benefits. In view of the specific provisions of the Act, the G.O., will have no force in law. The respondent act in treating it as fresh appointment is contrary to Section 47 of the Act. Hence, the impugned proceedings is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.