Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 31 (TRI)

Swapan Kumar Dey v. Airport's Authority of India

2014-01-24

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- By filing this writ petition the petitioner inter alia sought for following relief(s):- (ii) Issue a rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing/commending/mandating the respondents to release salary of the petitioner and for keeping him in a supernumerary post with effect from September, 2011, forthwith. (iii) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari cancelling/setting aside/the order dated 04-10-2012 (Annexure P/5 infra) (iv) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing/commending/mandating the respondents to act in strict conformity with the provisions of the P.W.D. Act and the allied rules framed there under: The case of the petitioner, in short, is that on 28.12.2005, while the petitioner was working as a Supervisor (E & M), posted at Agartala, under the Airport Authority of India, the respondents, at his work place, he suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in G.B. Hospital. He was discharged on 30.12.2005 with a diagnosis of developed paralysis. In 2006, he undergone treatment at Apollo Hospital and at that time it was diagnosed that he was suffering from a rare disease called 'Destructive Myopathy' which was also known as Progressive Muscular Dystrophy. Because of the disease his bone marrow was gradually drying up and as a result he was moving towards progressive disability. In the year 2007-08 he was treated by Dr. Asesh Roy Chowdhury, a physician of 'Physical medicine and rehabilitation' and in the year 2009 when his condition was again deteriorated he was admitted in G.B. Hospital and the Medical Board of the G.B. Hospital considered his condition and certified him as suffering from 80% disability on 27.1.2010. The certificate of disability is annexed as Annexure-P.2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his disability certificate to his authority and prayed for extending him the facility as prescribed under "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995"(for short, P.W.D. Act, 1995), by writing a letter dated 11.02.2010. The respondents did not attach any importance to the said prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his disability certificate to his authority and prayed for extending him the facility as prescribed under "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995"(for short, P.W.D. Act, 1995), by writing a letter dated 11.02.2010. The respondents did not attach any importance to the said prayer of the petitioner. On 15.03.2010, he prayed for medical leave to attend AIMS for his treatment and medical leave was sanctioned on 25.05.2010. Since he was not in a position to move without attendant he also prayed for attendant but one attendant was allowed though he was not in a position to move without two attendants. He has undergone treatment at AIMS and returned on 30.06.2010. No fitness certificate was however given since he was having with 80% disability. He, thereafter prayed for 120 days special disability leave but his prayer was rejected. He reported his condition to the National Commission for Disablement and the Commission enquired with the matter. He attended office till 06.09.2011, and thereafter he was suffering 95% locomotive disability and was bed ridden and, therefore could not attend office. His salary was stopped though he made several representations for payment of his salary and other benefits for his continued treatment and survival. The respondents provided him some facilities for attending office but he was not in a position even to move and, therefore could not attend office. He was, therefore made unauthorized absent. On 04.10.2012, respondents issued a Memo.(Annexure-P.5 to the writ petition) stating that since the petitioner has been absenting from duties without any authority he shall not be allowed to any pay and allowance during the period of absence. On 16.10.2012 he made a prayer to immediately release his salary and to keep him in a supernumerary post. He approached the authority to give him all his benefits as per Section 47 of the P.W.D. Act of 1995 but the respondents have not yet provided the benefits though by that time he acquired disability of 95%. The disability was increasing gradually and because of the disability has/had been the petitioner was not in a position to attend the office and to perform his duties though certain facilities were provided and in the circumstance he prayed for the benefits, as prescribed under Section 47of the P.W.D. Act, and accordingly prayed for the relief(s) as stated hereinbefore. 2. The disability was increasing gradually and because of the disability has/had been the petitioner was not in a position to attend the office and to perform his duties though certain facilities were provided and in the circumstance he prayed for the benefits, as prescribed under Section 47of the P.W.D. Act, and accordingly prayed for the relief(s) as stated hereinbefore. 2. Respondents contested the case by filing written statement inter alia stating that the petitioner joined the post of Supervisor (E & M) at Agartala Airport in the year 1993. In the year 2005, he received a head injury due to road accident and subsequently the District Disability Board, West Tripura certified that he was suffering from 80% disability in the month of January, 2010, which was subsequently increased to 95% in the month of August, 2012. Considering his disability on 10.05.2010, he was entrusted with lighter work and was provided all facilities such as (i) standard barrier free disable toilet for handicapped persons, (ii) wheel chair for disable person, (iii) special wheel chair as demanded by him, (iv) shifting chair according to height and (iv) special wooden chair provided in disability toilet. All facilities were provided to him to attend the office to do a clerical job but still he failed to attend the office. He attended AIIMS hospital, New Delhi and all expenditure was borne by the respondents but ultimately as per advice he did not attend AIIMS for review of treatment. His pay and salary were released upto February, 2011 with utmost sympathy. It is contended that since he was suffering from 95% disability and was unable to work or to attend office at all, and since there was no provision in the Airport Authority of India Act and Rules to make payment of salaries, there was no scope of making payment of his salaries. It is also contended by filing an additional counter affidavit that the authority considered the case of the petitioner and it was found that as per the Rules of Airport Authority of India, an employee who remains absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to pay and allowance during the period of absence and no salary can be paid to the petitioner until he attends the office or if he leaves the office by putting his signature in the attendance register, it should be treated as absent from duty. 3. 3. During pendency of this writ case by order dated 15.03.2013, an Advocate Commission was appointed by this Court requesting learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty to inspect the office of the respondents, for ascertaining the facilities provided to the petitioner and to audit the official records why the pay and allowance of the petitioner who is a physically challenged person has not been released by the respondents authority. The Advocate Commissioner, in the presence of learned counsel of both side visited the office of Respondents and examined necessary records and in compliance of the Court's order submitted report dated 22.04.2013 which reads as follows:-- COMMISSION REPORT Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 15.3.2013, passed in the above numbered case, I went to the Agartala office of the Airport Authority of India, on 18.4.2013 at 12:30 hrs. along with Mr. B.N. Majumder and Mr. P.K. Paul, the learned counsel of both the parties and examined the papers pertaining to the pay and allowances and leave of the petitioner and also visited the room provided to the petitioner to see the nature of facilities extended to him by the respondents and noted the following points:-- PAY AND ALLOWANCES:--The petitioner has been paid the salary up to the month of Sept. 2011, thereafter no salary has been paid to him from Oct. 2011 to Feb. 2012 on the ground that he has stopped attending the office without giving any information. However, he was paid the salary only for the month of March, 2012 as per the order of the DGM(HR), NER dated 4.4.2012 by obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner that in case the payment is found to be wrongly made, the same shall be recovered from him. Accordingly, the petitioner gave an undertaking on 24.4.2012 and the salary for the month of March, 2012 was released and after that no further payment has been made to him. The Airport Authority has also shown me a letter of the Sr. Manager (HR) dated 9.8.2012 addressed to the Regional Executive Director, AAI, NER, Guwahati to the effect that as per their Notification dated 23.5.2003 (Point No. 14) an employee who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to the pay and allowances during the period of such absence. Hence, the petitioner could not be paid his salary by them beyond the payments already made. Hence, the petitioner could not be paid his salary by them beyond the payments already made. DISABILITY LEAVE:--I have been shown a Memo. Dtd. 11.3.2011 issued for the Airport Director, A.A.I. Agartala Airport, to the petitioner with reference his applications dated 9.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 for Spl. Disability leave whereby the petitioner was informed that the said leave could not be acceded to as per AAI(Leave) Regulations. FACILITIES PROVIDED:--It has been found that the petitioner has been allotted a separate room measuring 8 ft. X 14 ft. (Approx) in the ground floor in the office of the AAI, Agartala wherein one Chair (Spl. Type), two wheel chairs, one table and one Intercom have been provided. I have been told by the Director, AAI, Agartala that out of the two wheel chairs one has been provided as per the specification given by the petitioner. Besides above, a special type of facility has been given to him in the toilet making its use convenient for the petitioner. The exclusive service of an attendant has also been provided to him. PRESENT PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER:--Myself along with Mr. B.N. Majumder and Mr. P.K. Paul, the ld. Advocates of the parties visited the quarters of the petitioner to see his present condition and it appeared to me that he has lost the capacity of movement. He was found lying in a hard bed under the care and attendance of his old mother who(mother) told me that the petitioner constantly remains in the same position, resulting bed sores. Since, all these health matters are to be examined and decided by a medical expert, I refrain myself from making any comment or giving any opinion. (Saktimoy Chakraborty) Senior Advocate. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.05.2013, the Standing Medical Board of A.G.M.C. and G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala examined the petitioner and certified that the petitioner is having with 80% disability and the condition is progressive and requires to be evaluated in every three months interval. The report was submitted to the Court by the Standing Medical Board directly. The report was submitted to the Court by the Standing Medical Board directly. The contents of the report read as follows:-- REPORT OF THE STANDING MEDICAL BOARD The members of the Standing Medical Board, Government of Tripura, Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala, have examined Sri Swapan Kumar Dey, S/o Sudhir Ranjan Dey on 13-06-2013 and arrived at the decision that he is suffering from generalized muscular pain and weakness of all the four limbs. The mobility of all the four limbs is grossly restricted due to pain and weakness. The disability is 80% (eighty) percent. The condition is progressive and requires to be evaluated every three month interval. Sd/- Member Sd/- Member Sd/- Co-Opt. Member Sd/- Member Secretary Sd/- Chairman 5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Arindam Lodh for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Pal for the respondents, Airport Authority of India. 6. It is emphatically submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Lodh that the petitioner is completely disabled and is bedridden. He is not in a position to move. Whereas, the respondents are insisting that he should join the office and otherwise he will not be entitled to get his salaries and other benefits. The report of the Advocate Commission and the Medical report obtained by order of this Court dated 15.06.2013 is enough to say that the petitioner is not in a position to move and to attend office and under such circumstances the claim of the petitioner to provide him all benefits as prescribed under Section 47 of P.W.D. Act, 1995 is justified and the respondents are bound to extend those benefits. The provisions of P.W.D. Act, 1995 has an overriding effect on all other Acts and Rules and the respondents deliberately ignored the provision of law and deprived the petitioner from the legitimate relief's/benefits prescribed under the Act. In support of his contention learned counsel referred the cases of (i) Kunal Singh V. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 1623 : (2003) 4 SCC 524 (ii) Union of India v. Sanjoy Kr. Jain, decided by the Supreme Court on 11.08.2004 in Appeal (Civil) 5178 of 2004 and (iii) the case of Union of India v. Debendra Kr. Pant & Ors. decided on 09.07.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Jain, decided by the Supreme Court on 11.08.2004 in Appeal (Civil) 5178 of 2004 and (iii) the case of Union of India v. Debendra Kr. Pant & Ors. decided on 09.07.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Pal appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been provided with all facilities to attend the office and to perform a lighter duty suitable for him. But he deliberately absented and not attending the office. He is suffering from disability but according to the records he suffered the disability due to some road accident and no evidence was found that he suffered brain stroke while on duty. It is further contended by learned counsel, Mr. Pal that there is no provision in the Airport Authority of India Act and Rules framed thereunder to provide salaries and other benefits to a person who is not attending office at all and in the circumstances there is no other alternative for the petitioner but to apply for disability pension as per Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The respondents provided all facilities to the petitioner including his treatment at AIIMS and all expenditure was borne by the respondents. Under the present position, the respondents have no other alternative but to keep the petitioner in no work no pay basis since he is not in a position to perform his duty. 8. The petitioner prayed for the benefit as prescribed in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 47 reads as follows:-- 47. Non-discrimination in Government employments-(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. 9. Section 72 of the Act and Rules framed thereunder prescribes that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. The provision reads as follows: 72. Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.--The provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder, enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities. 10. The P.W.D. Act is a welfare legislation. The intents and purposes of this legislation has well been stated in the statements of objects and reasons which reads as follows: STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific Region. India is a signatory to the said proclamation and it is necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following:-- (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities: (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities: (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-à-vis non-disabled persons; (iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. 2. 2. Accordingly, it is proposed to provide inter alia for the constitution of Co-ordination Committees and Executive Committees at the Central and State levels to carry out the various functions assigned to them. Within the limits of their economic capacity and development the appropriate Governments and the local authorities will have to undertake various measures for the prevention and early detection of disabilities, creation of barrier-free environment, provision for rehabilitation services, etc. The Bill also provides for education, employment and vocational training, reservation in identified posts, research and manpower development, establishment of homes for persons with severe disabilities, etc. For effective implementation of the provision of the Bill, appointment of the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities at the Central level and Commissioners for persons with disabilities at the State level clothed with powers to monitor the funds disbursed by the Central and State Governments and also to take steps to safeguard the rights of the persons with disabilities is also envisaged. 3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 11. Indisputably, the petitioner joined the service in the year 1993 as an able-bodied person. It may be presumed, without any hesitation that a person do not acquire or suffer disability by choice. There is also no allegation that the petitioner malingering disability or that he has suffered the disability for his own fault. The petitioner stated that he suffered brain stroke while on duty on 28.12.2005. Respondents contended that he suffered a road accident and consequently acquired disability. In support of the contention of the respondents that the petitioner suffered road accident there is no evidence/material on record in support thereof and hence I find no reason to attach any importance to that contention of the respondents. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner suffered disability of more than 80%. 12. Section 2(7) defines the words "persons with disability" means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by medical authority. Admittedly, the petitioner suffering disability of 80% and above and at present his disability is 80% which is progressive. There is no dispute that the disability which the petitioner is suffering is a "locomotor disability" as defined in Section 2(i)(o) of the P.W.D. Act, 1995. Admittedly, the petitioner suffering disability of 80% and above and at present his disability is 80% which is progressive. There is no dispute that the disability which the petitioner is suffering is a "locomotor disability" as defined in Section 2(i)(o) of the P.W.D. Act, 1995. While the petitioner is suffering from such locomotor disability, he is entitled to get the protection of all benefits as prescribed in section 47 of the Act. 13. The provision prescribed in the P.W.D. Act, 1995 should be read as a whole keeping in mind the paramount object of the welfare legislation. Every welfare legislation is actuated with some policy and speaking broadly with some beneficial object behind it. 14. Justice G.P. Singh in his book "Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition, 2004" while highlighting "intention of the legislature" quoted thus:-- A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a stature is to seek the 'intention' of its maker. A statute is to be construed according "to the intent of them that make it" and "the duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature--the mens or sententia legis". The expression 'intention of the legislature' is a shorthand reference to the meaning of the words used by the legislature objectively determined with the guidance furnished by the accepted principles of interpretation. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature, in other words the 'legal meaning' or 'true meaning' of the statutory provision. The task is often not an easy one and the difficulties arise because of various reasons. To mention a few of them: Words in any language are not scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning, and language is but an imperfect medium to convey one's thought, much less of a large assembly consisting of persons of various shades of opinion. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to forestall exhaustively situations and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. The function of the courts is only to expound and not to legislate. The numerous rules of interpretation or construction formulated by courts are expressed differently by different judges and support may be found in these formulations for apparently contradictory proposions. The function of the courts is only to expound and not to legislate. The numerous rules of interpretation or construction formulated by courts are expressed differently by different judges and support may be found in these formulations for apparently contradictory proposions. The Author has further observed that-- Legislation in a modern State is actuated with some policy to curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. The legislation is primarily directed to the problems before the Legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future. But, from the very nature of things, it is impossible to anticipate fully the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in hand may be called for, and, words chosen to communicate such indefinite 'referents' are bound to be, in many cases lacking in clarity and precision and thus giving rise to controversial questions of construction. This analysis later met the approval of the Supreme Court. At page 109 of the Book, the Author has further quoted-- As stated earlier and as approved by the Supreme Court: 'The words of a statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strict grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained. 15. Beneficial statute always receives liberal construction. In such statues, the doubt is resolved in favour of the class or person for whose benefit the law is enacted. In construing such statute the Court ought to give a harmonious interpretation which its language will permit. They have only to see that the opportunity comes is within the mischief to be remedied and falls within language of the enactment. The words and phrase of such statute must be so construed so as to give the complete remedy within the permissible phraseology. 16. Indisputably, the petitioner suffering 80% disability. The first disability certificate dated 27.01.2010 was submitted by the petitioner to his authority. The words and phrase of such statute must be so construed so as to give the complete remedy within the permissible phraseology. 16. Indisputably, the petitioner suffering 80% disability. The first disability certificate dated 27.01.2010 was submitted by the petitioner to his authority. That was considered by the respondents and certain lighter duty was allotted to him and other facilities were also provided to the petitioner as stated in the counter affidavit. But subsequently he was not in a position to attend the office at all, being completely bedridden and under such circumstance the plea of the respondents that the salary and other benefits cannot be given to the petitioner since he is not attending the office cannot stand in the eye of law. Section 47 of the P.W.D. Act has an overriding effect on other laws including the provisions of Rule 38 of CCS(Pension) Rules. Obviously it has also an overriding effect of Airport Authority of India Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder as the case may be. The provisions of Section 47 of the P.W.D. Act made it abundantly clear that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during his service. Indisputably, the petitioner acquired disability during his service. He is bedridden and not in a position to move to attend his job. There is no case of the respondents that the petitioner has the ability to move and to work but not joining the office and not doing work. Under such circumstances, the stand of the respondents that he cannot be given the salary and other benefits of his service is not tenable in law at all. If the petitioner cannot render service for the time being a supernumerary post should be created for him and should be adjusted/posted in such supernumerary post till his attaining superannuation or till his death whichever is earlier. The petitioner cannot be deprived of any benefit of his service during the continuation of his disability including that of promotion and retiral benefits. He cannot be compelled to go for disability pension in view of the provisions prescribed in P.W.D. Act. 17. The case of the Kunal Sing(supra) is in the context of a similar situation. In that case a person in course of his service acquired disability and he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the Department. He cannot be compelled to go for disability pension in view of the provisions prescribed in P.W.D. Act. 17. The case of the Kunal Sing(supra) is in the context of a similar situation. In that case a person in course of his service acquired disability and he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the Department. While deciding that case the Supreme Court has observed that by virtue of the provision of Section 47 he should be not only retained in service but also all service benefit should be provided to him. In Paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment are relevant and we may gainfully quote those paras for reference which read as follows:-- 7. From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the disability suffered by the appellant is covered by Section 2(i)(v) read with Section 2(o) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that this disability was acquired by the appellant during his service. Under Section 2 "disability" and "person with disability" are separately defined and they are distinct. We may also notice some provisions in Chapter VI of the Act relating to employment. Section 32 deals with identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. Section 33 speaks of reservation of such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Section 38 requires the appropriate Governments and local authorities to formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. Section 47 is included in Chapter VIII of the Act. Chapter VI deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities including identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for such persons. Under this Chapter, reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities is made for initial appointments. Section 47 in Chapter VIII deals with an employee of an establishment who acquires a disability during his service. 8. The need for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and to help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. Section 47 in Chapter VIII deals with an employee of an establishment who acquires a disability during his service. 8. The need for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and to help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. To realize objective that people with disabilities should have equal opportunities and keeping their hopes and aspirations in view a meeting called the 'Meet to Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons' was held in Beijing in the first week of December, 1992 by the Asian and Pacific countries to ensure 'full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions'. This Meeting was held by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific. A Proclamation was adopted in the said meeting. India was a signatory to the said Proclamation and they agreed to give effect to the same. Pursuant thereto this Act was enacted, which came into force on 1st January, 1996. The Act provides some sort of succor to the disabled persons. 9. 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 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 47clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". 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 47clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of 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 social beneficial 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. 18. In the case of Sanjoy Kr. Jain and Debendra Kr. Pant(supra) the Apex Court has taken the same view as enunciated in Kunal Singh (supra). 19. In the case of Bhagwan Dass and Anr. V. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 579 , the Supreme Court in almost a similar case has made observation about the insensitiveness and apathetic attitude by some of us in the society who are living a normal life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. In that reported case the appellant Bhagwan Dass suffered visual impairment while in service and then became completely blind. He was a Class-IV employee and knew nothing about the provisions of P.W.D. Act, 1995. In that reported case the appellant Bhagwan Dass suffered visual impairment while in service and then became completely blind. He was a Class-IV employee and knew nothing about the provisions of P.W.D. Act, 1995. Since he was not in a position to serve, the department was trying to get rid of him and he also approached for pension but when he came to know about the provisions of the Act, he prayed for the benefit as prescribed under Section 47 of the Act. While deciding that case, in Para 2 of the Judgment, the Court was kind enough to observe:-- This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harbored by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of the case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of Appellant 1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous. In Para 20 of the judgment, the Court has observed thus:-- In the light of the discussions made above, the action of the Board in terminating the service of the disabled employee (Appellant 1) with effect from 21-3-1997 must be held to be bad and illegal. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, the appellant must be deemed to be in service and he would be entitled to all service benefits including annual increments and promotions, etc. till the date of his retirement. The amount of terminal benefits paid to him should be adjusted against the amount of his salary from 22-3-1997 till date. If any balance remains, that should be adjusted in easy monthly instalments from his future salary. The appellant shall continue in service till his date of superannuation according to the service records. He should be reinstated and all due payments, after adjustments as directed, should be made to him within six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment before the Secretary of the Board. 20. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition) is set aside. 20. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondents are directed to arrange payment of salary and other benefits to the petitioner with effect from September, 2011 as prayed for and the respondents are further directed, in the circumstances, to create a supernumerary post and to place the petitioner in such supernumerary post till he recovers from the disability and/or till he retires from the service. He should be given all benefits of service from time to time as may be accrued irrespective of his physical disability. The physical condition of the petitioner should be reviewed by the medical board at an interval of every three months at the instance of the respondents through the Standing Medical Board of A.G.M.C. and G.B.P. Hospital and the respondents shall take appropriate step according to law after reviewing the health condition of the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.