Judgment 1. This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records from the first respondent relating to the impugned order No.2013/A7/SETC (TN D-1)/ 2001 dated 03.09.2001, quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to provide the petitioner a notional suitable alternative permanent employment with continuity of service and pay protection in accordance with Sec.47 (1) of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 from 03.09.2001 and to pay him back wages and all other attendant benefits and to settle all his terminal benefits as if he continued in his service from 03.09.2001 to the date of his superannuation on 30.06.2006 and to further direct the respondents to pay him pension for his entire service from 19.10.1980 to 30.06.2006. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the first respondent Corporation on 15.10.1981 and was made permanent by an order dated 21.02.1982. He met with an accident, while he was in service and he has sustained serious bone fracture injuries in his left leg and in the left rib apart from other injuries. Subsequently, his left leg was amputated just above the knee. The petitioner requested the respondent to provide alternate employment. The first respondent sent him to Medical Board. After examining him, the Medical Board gave its report dated 30.04.2001 holding that he is not fit to continue to work as Driver. The respondent Corporation, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2001, discharged the petitioner from service and informed him that he can make an application for alternate employment, if he so desires. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner has filed the pres1ent Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2012, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the first respondent represented that the petitioner was discharged from the service in the year 2001, after issuing show cause dated 30.04.2001. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only in the year 2012, after a lapse of 11 years and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. The contention of the respondent that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches cannot be accepted. The impugned order is perse illegal. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition only in the year 2012, after a lapse of 11 years and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. The contention of the respondent that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches cannot be accepted. The impugned order is perse illegal. The petitioner in his representation dated 02.08.2001 sought for suitable alternative employment and respondents are bound to provide alternative employment. The respondents committed on illegality in asking the petitioner to make application for alternate employment while passing impugned order. For this reason impugned order is invalid and void abinitio. Therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 6. As per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the impugned order is illegal and the same is contrary to Section 47 of the Act and the judgments of the Apex Court. 7. Section 47 of the Act reads 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 tis 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." 8. The petitioner in his representation dated 16.07.2001, has sought for suitable alternate employment. The respondent partly acted upon the said representation and discharged the petitioner from service. They ought to have give an alternate employment in the impugned order itself. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2008(2) LLN.I (Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. The petitioner in his representation dated 16.07.2001, has sought for suitable alternate employment. The respondent partly acted upon the said representation and discharged the petitioner from service. They ought to have give an alternate employment in the impugned order itself. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2008(2) LLN.I (Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board), wherein paragraph 19, it has been held as follows:- “19. We understand that the officers concerned were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mindset it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who has no longer of any use. But, they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty-bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful rights of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view that officers failed to realise that 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 largesse but their right as equal citizens of the country.” 9. In view of the judgment referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to alternate employment with pension and continuity of service. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to pay all monetary benefits and other attendant benefits including pension for his entire service from 19.10.1980 to 30.06.2006, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.