Judgment : 1. The petitioner was a Driver in the 01st Respondent-APSRTC. He is presently working as a Shramik, the post which has been given to him due to the disability acquired during his service as driver. In this case, he is seeking pay protection in the cadre of Driver and for payment of arrears of salary and other attendant benefits under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’) . 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was found unfit to the post of Driver in the A1 category due to defective distant vision which is a disability identified under the Act. The petitioner was provided with a job as Shramik after he was found fit for the same. Having so appointed him, he has been put on the pay scale of a Shramik, but not the pay scale as a Driver. According to the petitioner, though he has been appointed in a lower post as a Shramik, he is entitled for pay protection and the attendant benefits. According to him, an obligation in this regard is cast on the 01st Respondent-Corporation by virtue of Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act is 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 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. 3. 3. A plain reading of the aforesaid Section discloses that no employee who has acquired a disability during service should be deprived of the job, nor should he suffer reduction in rank; and should it become necessary due to his being unsuitable for the post he is holding, he should be shifted to some other post with due pay protection and service benefits. A duty is enjoined upon the employer not to deprive the employee of his job though he has acquired disability, and as an alternative he should be provided with a suitable job. 4. The view taken by the Supreme Court in the following cases reinforce the mandatory character of the aforesaid provision. 5. In NarenderKumar Chandla Vs. State of Haryana (1995 AIR 519) the Supreme Court while dealing with an employee in Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay, who was disabled while in service, observed in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution that an employee who was afflicted with an unfortunate disease due to which he was unable to perform the duties of the post he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which he would discharge his duties. The Supreme Court further observed that such an employee would be entitled to protection of his last drawn pay. It is relevant to note that this judgment was in fact rendered prior to the enactment of Act, 1995. 6. After the Act has been enacted, in KunalSingh v. Union of India ( 2003 (4) SCC 524 ) the Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Act, held as follows : the Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Act, held as follows : “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. 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. 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 benefits enactment that too dealing with disabled 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.” 7. Several decisions have been rendered by this Court on the applicability of Section 47 of the Act. The APSRTC was a party to such decisions. The APSRTC in all fairness should have felt bound by such decisions and avoid further litigation on the same subject. 8. Several decisions have been rendered by this Court on the applicability of Section 47 of the Act. The APSRTC was a party to such decisions. The APSRTC in all fairness should have felt bound by such decisions and avoid further litigation on the same subject. 8. In fact my esteemed learned Brother Justice Sanjay Kumar had to observe in Abdul Asad v. APSRTC & Others (W.P. No.22269 of 2012, dated 25-09-2012) as follows : “Notwithstanding the fact that it has already invited several decisions from this Court on the applicability of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 and the obligation cast upon it thereunder, the APSRTC continues to blissfully ignore the same.” 9. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed in W.A.No.739 of 2013, dated 25-06-2013. 10. The 01st Respondent-APSRTC, however, would take a new ground in the instant case. According to it, there is no obligation on it to provide alternative job unless the disability has been certified by the authorities constituted under the Act. The Corporation relies on G.O. Rt. No.212, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 19-02-2010 and contend that a Medical Board constituted under the said G.O. is alone competent to assess and certify the disability. In the absence of such assessment and certification, benefit cannot be extended to the employees under the Act. 11. It is not possible to accept the contention. The APSRTC has its own machinery and mechanism for evaluation of the physical and medical fitness of its employees. 12. The Corporation has issued Circular PD-16/2008, dated 25-02-2008 to meet the situations arising out of the claims under the Act. As per the Circular, medical examination has to be conducted by the Medical Board constituted by the Corporation. If the Driver is found medically unfit by the Board and if he opts to retire from service on medical grounds, he shall be permitted to do so by extending additional monetary benefits. On the other hand, if the Driver opts for alternative employment, he should be offered the post of Conductor Grade-II, if he possesses the requisite qualifications, or he should be offered the post of Shramik, subject to his medical fitness for X2 category. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has been following this procedure ever since 2008 and appointing the medically unfit Drivers to alternative posts including Shramik posts. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has been following this procedure ever since 2008 and appointing the medically unfit Drivers to alternative posts including Shramik posts. Insofar as the Shramik post is concerned, fitness for X2 category post is considered sufficient. The Corporation, having thus evolved its own mechanism and machinery for evaluation which it has been following since 2008, is not justified in insisting for certification by an authority constituted under the Act. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for pay protection and other consequential benefits. 13. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, Respondents are directed to fix the pay for the petitioner in the cadre as Driver and pay arrears of salary and other attendant benefits as per his entitlement within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. 14. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.37759 of 2013 stands closed.