JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner Sri Dilleep Kumar Singh was employed as Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner sustained injuries in his spinal cord and major fracture in both foot due to fall from roof top of Quarter Guarding during checking night guard. 3. He has been confined to wheelchair for last several years. Under an interim order passed in the connected Writ Petition No. 30278 of 2004 filed against the proposal to board out from service, he was allowed to serve upto 24.5.2011, i.e.when the interim order was vacated permitting the respondent Central Reserve Police Force to take appropriate final decision in the matter. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) by an order in the name of President of India has taken a decision qua the petitioner with reference to the Notification dated 10.9.2002 issued under Section 33/47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act-1995’) to board out the petitioner on invalidation pension. 4. This order of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) is under challenged in the connected second writ petition No. 42011 of 2011. The short controversy involved in the petitions is confined to the interpretation of the Proviso to Section 47 of the Act, 1995 and the scope of Notification dated 10.9.2002. 5. We may record that the injury had been suffered by the petitioner rendering him invalid on 10.10.2001. On the relevant date no Notification under Section 33/47 had been issued qua Central Reserve Police Force. However, the invalidation medical certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner only on 22.3.2004. The petitioner had suffered 100% disability. On the date the invalidation certificate was issued the Notification dated 10.9.2002 under Section 33/47 had seen light of the day. 6. For the controversy involved it would be appropriate to refer to Section 33 as well as Section 47 of the Act, 1995 which read as follows : “33. Reservation of posts.—Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. 6. For the controversy involved it would be appropriate to refer to Section 33 as well as Section 47 of the Act, 1995 which read as follows : “33. Reservation of posts.—Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this 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 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 he 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 he specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 7. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, AIR 2010 SC 1253 para 14 has explained, that Section 33 of Act 1995 deals with reservation of posts for persons with disability. Sections 32 and 33 of Act, 1995 therefore apply to pre- employment situation, that is where persons with disability are yet to secure employment. While Section 47 applies to an employee who is already in employment and who acquires a disability during his service. Sections 32 and 33 of Act, 1995 therefore apply to pre- employment situation, that is where persons with disability are yet to secure employment. While Section 47 applies to an employee who is already in employment and who acquires a disability during his service. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 provides for protection to the employees in Government service who acquire a disability during service in following manner (a) their service shall not be dispensed with nor he shall be reduced in rank on the ground that he acquired a disability during service; and (b) if an employee who acquires a disability during service is not suitable for the post he was holding, he has to be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits, and (c) if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any such post, the employee has to be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier. 8. Section 47(2) of Act, 1995 take care of promotion of such invalidated employee and provides that he shall not be denied promotion merely on the ground that he suffers from the disability. Proviso to Section 47(2) of the Act, 1995 confers a power upon the Central Government having regard to the type of work carried to exempt an establishment from the applicability of the said Section. With reference to this Proviso to Section 47(2) of the Act, 1995 that the Central Government vide Notification dated 10.9.2002 excepted all categories of posts of “combatant personnel” only, of the Central Para Military Forces (CPMFs), namely, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF). Into Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Assam Rifles from the provisions of the said section. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Sanjay Kumar Jain, 2004 (6) SCC 4, has held that the power under Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 does not give unbriddled power to exclude any establishment from the purview of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, the exclusion can be only done under certain specified circumstances. A Notification can be issued only when the appropriate Government, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment thinks it appropriate to exempt such establishment from the provisions of Section 47 of Act, 1995 10. It is with reference to this Notification dated 10.9.2002 that the order impugned has been issued boarding out the petitioner on invalidation pension. 11. Sri B.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the Proviso to Sub-clause 2 Section 47 authorize the Central Government to exclude a particular establishment only in the matter of promotion because of the invalidation, the scope of this proviso cannot be extended so as to suggest that the establishment stands excluded from the applicability of entire Section 47 including the restriction which is provided for under Section 47(1) in the matter of disengagement of an employee who surfers disability during employment. 12. In support of his submission Sri B.N. Singh has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 73 (3) and 73(4) of the Act, 1995. He submits that Act 1995 is a social beneficial enactment dealing with disabled persons and 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. 13. Sri B.N. Singh relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, AIR 2010 SC 1253 , Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another, Bhagwan Dass and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2008(1) SC 75. 14. Sri Ashok Singh, counsel for the respondents in reply submits that on simple reading of the Proviso to Section 47 Act 1995 makes it clear that the Central Government has been granted a power to exclude an establish from the scope of Section 47 of Act 1995 as a whole. The word “from the provisions of this Section of the proviso on simple reading would mean from the provisions of entire Section 47 which would include sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 47”. 15. The word “from the provisions of this Section of the proviso on simple reading would mean from the provisions of entire Section 47 which would include sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 47”. 15. He explains that the Central Government having regard to the nature of work claimed on by Central Reserve Police Force in exercise of powers under Section 47, Proviso has decided to exclude the establishment from the provision of Section 47 in its entirety. Therefore, the order of the competent authority boarding out the petitioner on invalidation pension does not violate any of the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 16. Sri Ashok Singh, advocate has placed reliance upon the judgments in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, AIR 1975 SC 1758 , Union of India v. Sanjay Kumar Jain, 2004(6) SCC 708 , Union of India and others v. Mohd. Yasin Ansari, 2013 (6) ADJ 276 , Union of India and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (8) ADJ 280 , Dhruv Singh Yadav v. Director General Central Industrial Secruity Force and others, 2011(1) UPLBEC 774 and Sandeep Singh v. Union of India, decided on 22.2.2011. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petitions. 18. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 in clear terms provides that there cannot be any discrimination in Government employments qua persons who suffer disability denying service. It mandates that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee because of the disability suffered by him during service. To the said sub-section (1) there are two Proviso added, the Ist Proviso provides that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. While IInd Proviso to the same sub-section (1) provides that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any suitable post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or till he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 19. Sub-section (2) to Section 47 prohibits denial of promotion only because of disability suffered by an employee during service. 19. Sub-section (2) to Section 47 prohibits denial of promotion only because of disability suffered by an employee during service. The issue up for consideration is as to whether the proviso added after sub-section (2) of Section 47 is in the nature of exception from the sub-section (2) only or it is in the nature of an exception to the Section 47 itself. 20. In a meeting of launch of 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, a proclamation was adopted on the full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. Our country is a signatory to the said proclamation. To give full effect to the proclamation it was felt necessary to enact a legislation Act, 1995 is the manifestation of the said proclamation. The Act 1995 has to be read in that background. 21. The disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country. 22. We are of the opinion that if the purpose of the Act 1995 is to be given effect to in the widest possible amplitude being a social beneficial legislation then every attempt must be made to read its provision in a manner which may protect the employment of the disabled. Effort has to be made to see that an employee who suffers disability during employment is not denied his his bread and butter. Not only the employee so disabled would suffer by his disengagement his entire family which is dependent upon him would have to bear the brunt. 23. The proviso after Section 47(2) if read as an exception to Section 47(2) only and not as an exception to Section 47 as a whole would definitely be in tune with fundamental purpose for which the Act 1995 has been enacted. 24. 23. The proviso after Section 47(2) if read as an exception to Section 47(2) only and not as an exception to Section 47 as a whole would definitely be in tune with fundamental purpose for which the Act 1995 has been enacted. 24. The purpose of placing the proviso after Section 47(2) by the legislature when ascertained with reference to proclamation of full participation and quality of people with disability wold be more than obvious to exclude the rights of consideration for promotion of a disabled employee qua certain establishments rather than out boarding the employee from the employment itself. 25. It may be noticed that under Section 47(1) of Act, 1995 even where a disabled employee cannot be adjusted against any post in the establishment because of disability, a supernumerary post is required to be created for the period till he can be adjusted or he attains the age of superannuation which ever is earlier. 26. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the employees deal with applicability of proviso added after Section 47(2) in the matter of promotion of a disabled employee and are therefore distinguishable. 27. 26. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the employees deal with applicability of proviso added after Section 47(2) in the matter of promotion of a disabled employee and are therefore distinguishable. 27. We are supported in our reasoning by the language of Section 73 sub-clause (3) and sub-clause (4) which read as follows : - “(3) Every notification made by the Central Government under the proviso to Section 33, proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47, every scheme framed by it under Section 27, Section 30, sub-section (1) of Section 38, Section 42, Section 43, Section 67, Section 68 and every rule made by it under sub-section (1), shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule, notification or scheme, both Houses agree that the rule, notification or scheme should not be made, the rule, notification or scheme shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule, notification or scheme, as the case may be. 4. Every notification made by the State Government under the proviso to Section 33, proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47, every scheme made by it under Section 27, Section 30, sub-section (1) of Section 38, Section 42, Section 43, Section 67, Section 68 and every rule made by it under sub-section (1), shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of State Legislature, where it consists of two Houses or where such legislature consists of one House before that House.” 28. From the simple reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that legislature itself has contemplated that Notification of exception has to be issued with reference to the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47 only. From the simple reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that legislature itself has contemplated that Notification of exception has to be issued with reference to the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47 only. Therefore Notification for exemption of the establishment has to be with regard to what is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 47 and not the entire Section 47. 29. It may also be seen that while Section 73(3) and Section 73(4) of the Act, 1995 talk of Notification to be issued under Proviso to Section 33 they refers to a Notification to be issued under Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47 only. 30. For the reasons recorded by us herein above, we record that the Notification dated 10.9.2002 issued under Section 73(2) by the Central Government is necessarily to be read with reference to the field occupied by sub-section (2) of Section 47 only. Therefore the Notification dated 10.9.2002 as exempts the CRPF from the restriction imposed in the matter of denial of promotion to disabled employees only. 31. With the help of such Notification the respondent establishment could not have boarded out the petitioner with disability pension. 32. In view of the aforesaid, we held that the boarding out of the petitioner under the order impugned with invalidation pension cannot be sustained, it is therefore quashed. The respondent establishment is directed to treat the petitioner in the service and to adjust him against any suitable post or against a supernumerary post, until a suitable post is available or till he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 33. It is needless to the record that the petitioner shall be entitled for full salary and consequential benefit of service. 34. The writ petition is allowed. —————