JUDGMENT N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 9546 of 2012 dated 29.01.2013, wherein the appellant has sought for a declaration declaring that the action of the first respondent in not offering suitable alternate employment to him with effect from 16.10.1998 i.e. the date of discharge from service by an order dated 15.9.1998, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as the Act], and violative of Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to provide him alternate employment commensurate with status with effect from 16.10.1998, with all consequential benefits. 2. Even though such a prayer was made in the writ petition, the appellant subsequently filed an additional affidavit dated 17.06.2012, stating that he was willing to give up the entire backwages from 16.10.1998 till 31.03.2012, if he is given the benefits with pay protection commensurate with status, continuity of service and other consequential benefits with effect from 16.10.1998. The learned Single Judge, without considering the said aspects, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that after the delay of 14 years, the appellant has filed the writ petition seeking the above said direction. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this writ appeal, relying upon the provisions contained under Section 47 of the Act as well as the Judgment rendered by one of us (NPVJ) reported in G. Kandasamy vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Villupuram, 2010 (3) LLN 380: 2002 (2) SCC 244 and also the Judgment rendered in W.A. No. 349 of 2011 dated 04.01.2013. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal by the appellant was that he was appointed on 20.02.1987 as a driver DR 2396. He used to drive 260 kms a day for 18 hours. Due to the stress of driving, he sustained severe back pain as well as shoulder pain, resulting in problem in L2 and L3. The Management advised the appellant to appear before the Medical Board by letter dated 04.05.1998. He also appeared before the Medical Board and he was also admitted as in-patient for giving treatment between 09.06.1998 and 26.06.1998. While he was in hospital, a representation was submitted on 19.06.1998 seeking suitable alternative employment. The Management advised the appellant to appear before the Medical Board by letter dated 04.05.1998. He also appeared before the Medical Board and he was also admitted as in-patient for giving treatment between 09.06.1998 and 26.06.1998. While he was in hospital, a representation was submitted on 19.06.1998 seeking suitable alternative employment. The appellant was discharged from hospital on 26.06.1998 and he was found unfit for the post of Driver by the Medical Board on 08.07.1998. Without considering the representation of the appellant dated 19.06.1998, the 1st respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 21.08.1998, calling upon the appellant as to why he should not be discharged from service, as the Medical Board has found that he was unfit for the post of Driver. 4. On 31.08.1998, the appellant submitted a detailed representation and prayed for alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Act. The Management, without considering the said request, discharged the appellant from service by order dated 15.09.1998 with effect from 16.10.1998. According to the appellant, he was given alternate appointment as Helper by order dated 12.11.1998, which is lower in cadre, that too treating as fresh appointment with a basic pay of Rs. 1690/- and also stating that the earlier services rendered by him as a driver will be forfeited. The appellant after serving for about 13 years as Helper, made claim by way of filing the above writ petition. As already stated, the appellant has given up the difference in salary for the period from 16.10.1998 till 31.03.2012. 5. The said claim of the appellant was opposed by the Management by contending that the appellant was already given alternate employment in the post of Helper and the appellant, having accepted the said offer of appointment and joined the said post without any demur, cannot claim alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Act. 6. 5. The said claim of the appellant was opposed by the Management by contending that the appellant was already given alternate employment in the post of Helper and the appellant, having accepted the said offer of appointment and joined the said post without any demur, cannot claim alternative employment in terms of Section 47 of the Act. 6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Section 47 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "Section 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 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. 1. 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." 7. From a perusal of the above statutory provision, it is evident that it is the duty of the Management to give alternative employment to a person who is found unsuitable to hold the post by the properly constituted Medical Board and even if there is no equivalent post, such person shall be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available and such person shall also be given promotion with all other benefits. Thus, the Management is not right in contending that the appellant having accepted the Helper post without demur, cannot claim benefits under Section 47 of the Act. It is well settled in law that there cannot be estoppel against statute. 8. Considering the said statutory provision, this Court in the earlier Judgments rendered has held that it is the responsibility of the Management to give alternative employment with pay protection and other benefits to the employees who are found not fit for the post. It is well settled in law that there cannot be estoppel against statute. 8. Considering the said statutory provision, this Court in the earlier Judgments rendered has held that it is the responsibility of the Management to give alternative employment with pay protection and other benefits to the employees who are found not fit for the post. In the case on hand, even though there is a delay, the appellant was fair enough to file an additional affidavit, giving up the difference in pay for the period between 16.10.1998 and 31.03.2012. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed as injustice has been done to the appellant by the Management. Hence the respondents are bound to treat the appellant as served in the driver post from the date of discharge with all other promotional/selection grade/special grade benefits till his retirement. 9. In view of the above findings, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2013 made in W.P. No. 9546 of 2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant as served in the driver post from the date of discharge with all other promotion benefits. However, the difference in pay payable between 16.10.1998 and 31.03.2012 need not be paid to the appellant in terms of the additional affidavit filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. But, the said period shall be included for other purposes. Since the appellant has already retired from service on 30.04.2013, he is entitled to get the difference in pay from 01.04.2012, as if, he served in the post of driver from the date of discharge. The arrears of pay payable from 01.04.2012 till the date of retirement shall be calculated and the said amount shall be adjusted towards the contribution payable by the appellant for the purpose of sanction of terminal benefits. If any further amount is payable by the appellant, the same shall be paid by the appellant without any interest to the Corporation for the calculation of retirement benefits. The said exercise is directed to be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs.