JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 1251 of 2012, whereby, the learned Single Judge by invoking Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/ respondent, with the direction to the respondents/ appellants to grant all the promotions to the petitioner notionally and release the arrears of pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2001 on the post of DVR MT Grade II; with effect from 01.01.2007 on the post of DVR MT Grade I; and with effect from 01.01.2010 of Special Grade. 2. Brief facts as asserted in the petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Pioneer with GREF on 07.04.1986. He was re-appointed on the post of DVR MT (Ord) with inter se seniority with effect from 25.09.1991. He joined his duties on 01.01.1992. While serving in RCC GREF, he suffered injury on his left eye, as a result of which, his left eye was removed and an artificial eye was fitted. The petitioner was permitted to drive the vehicle despite the fact that he suffered eye injury while on duty. 3. It is asserted that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982, a person holding post of DVR MT (Ord) is entitled for promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade II on completion of 9 years of service, subject to qualifying the Trade Test, being conducted by concerned Unit. Similarly, after completion of 6 years of service on the post of MT DVR Grade II, an employee shall be awarded promotion to the post of MT DVR Grade I and thereafter, on completion of 3 years of service on the post of MT DVR Grade I, shall be entitled for special grade. It is an admitted fact, that the petitioner completed 9 years of service on the post of DVR MT (Ord) on 01.01.2001, therefore, petitioner was required to be considered for promotion subject to qualifying his Trade Test, however, he was not given chance to face such Trade Test on account of injury suffered by him. It is an admitted fact, that the petitioner completed 9 years of service on the post of DVR MT (Ord) on 01.01.2001, therefore, petitioner was required to be considered for promotion subject to qualifying his Trade Test, however, he was not given chance to face such Trade Test on account of injury suffered by him. It is further asserted that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of MT DVR Grade II vide order dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) with effect from 13.06.2011, thereafter, petitioner made repeated requests to the respondents to grant him promotion from the back date, after completion of 9 years of service as DVR MT (Ord) to the post of MT DVR Grade II with effect from 01.01.2001 and to grant him subsequent promotions, but to no avail. Thereafter, petitioner filed WPSS No. 575 of 2012 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 04.05.2012 directed the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner moved representation dated 28.05.2012 asking the respondent authorities to grant him promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade II with effect from 01.01.2001 and further to grant him promotion with effect from 01.01.2007 on the post of MT DVR Grade I and thereafter, to grant him Special Grade with effect from 01.01.2010 and to consider his case for transfer BCA area as per seniority and to pay all the arrears along with 18% interest per annum. Representation, so moved by the petitioner, was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2012. 4. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India/appellants, Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondent and have gone through material available on record. 5. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner, held out that the petitioner was never discharged on account of medical disability and he is still working with the respondents. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that provisions of Section 47 of the Act were ever exempted by Government Notification. The learned Single Judge found that there is no denial of the assertion of petitioner that he was not allowed to appear in the Trade Test. Therefore, as per the mandate of Section 47 of the Act, petitioner cannot be deprived of all service benefits including promotion. The learned Single Judge found that there is no denial of the assertion of petitioner that he was not allowed to appear in the Trade Test. Therefore, as per the mandate of Section 47 of the Act, petitioner cannot be deprived of all service benefits including promotion. In view of the fact that petitioner was not allowed to face the Trade Test for no fault of him and was allowed to face Trade Test only in 2011, in which petitioner was held successful and was awarded promotion too on the post of MT DVR Grade II with effect from 12.09.2011, while in normal circumstances, petitioner ought to have been awarded promotion on MT DVR Grade II with effect from 2001 on completion of 9 years of service. The learned Single Judge found the petitioner entitled for all the promotional pay scales, for which he was otherwise entitled. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment and order under appeal with the contention that for the purpose of grant of promotion to Grade II, Trade Test was mandatory requirement and after passing out of Trade Test, the petitioner was granted promotion in the said grade w.e.f. 13.06.2011, which he accepted voluntarily and after completion of 9 years of service in the ordinary grade, the petitioner never presented his claim for promotion to Grade-II. It is contended that three times the Trade Test was held, but the petitioner did not appear or pass the Test, which is mandatory requirement for promotion. He contended that the findings of learned Single Judge are erroneous to the extent that the petitioner was not allowed to face the Trade Test by the authorities because of injuries suffered by him, rather the petitioner was then allowed to appear in the test, which was held in the year 2010, in which the petitioner appeared. It is further contended that as per Rule 1982, Trade Test is mandatory requirement and the incumbent, who is under the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade-II, he is free to appear in the Trade Test and no one can say that he was not allowed to appear in the test. It is further contended that as per Rule 1982, Trade Test is mandatory requirement and the incumbent, who is under the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade-II, he is free to appear in the Trade Test and no one can say that he was not allowed to appear in the test. It is submitted that the petitioner completed 9 years in the ordinary grade in the year 2000 and since then, three times the Trade Test was held i.e. in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the petitioner did not appear in all three tests on the ground of loss of his left eye. However, in 2010, he appeared in the Trade Test and qualified the same and after passing out the same, he was promoted to Grade-II post. He contended that it was specifically stated in the order impugned that the petitioner failed to appear and therefore, the Single Judge should not have reasoned that there is no denial of the averments of the petitioner that he was not allowed to appear. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner contended that during service, the petitioner suffered an injury in his left eye, which was removed later on, as a result of which the petitioner was placed in permanent category GRFF-II. He was given light duty for about one year and thereafter, he was given active duty for driving the vehicle. In the year 2004, the petitioner was officially handed over the charge of the vehicle and since then he has been continuously driving the vehicle to the full satisfaction of his superiors. He vehemently contended that the petitioner completed 9 years of service in the year 2001 and Trade Test were held by the respondents in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the petitioner was not permitted to appear for Trade Test on the ground of loss of his left eye. The respondents called the petitioner for Trade Test in the month of August, 2010, in which the petitioner appeared and qualified and he was given promotion on 12.09.2011 on MT DVR Grade II. The respondents called the petitioner for Trade Test in the month of August, 2010, in which the petitioner appeared and qualified and he was given promotion on 12.09.2011 on MT DVR Grade II. Earlier, the respondents never called the petitioner to appear in the Trade Test, and it was only after receiving legal notice, the respondents called the petitioner for Trade Test. He submitted that the petitioner had become eligible for promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade II w.e.f. 01.01.2001, and for further promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade I w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and even to special Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2010. Admittedly, the juniors to the petitioners have been promoted to the higher grade. It is contended that on one hand, the respondents have taken stand that the petitioner was placed in medical category/declared unfit for driving, on the other, the respondents have given active duty for driving vehicles. It is then contended that once the petitioner is found fit for renewal of his licence for driving the vehicle and he has been found fit by the Department in performing his duty of MT DVR and has been subjected to drive all kinds of vehicles, which duty he had performed to the utter satisfaction of his superiors, there is no logical reason to deprive the petitioner to his right to promotion for higher grade, by not permitting the petitioner to appear in the Trade Test. It is then contended that lastly the driving licence of the petitioner was renewed on 01.01.2012 from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012, however after submitting representation by the petitioner, on the direction of this Court on 04.05.2012, the driving licence of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent no.5 on 22.06.3012 without any notice and information. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 47 of the Act, which reads as follows: “47. Non discrimination in Government employments. 1. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 47 of the Act, which 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 supernumeracy 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 be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 9. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Recruitment Promotion Rules, 1982 provides that a person holding post of DVR MT (Ord) is entitled for promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade II on completion of 9 years of service, subject to qualifying the Trade Test. Similarly, after completion of 6 years of service on the post of MT DVR Grade II, an employee shall be awarded promotion to the post of MT DVR Grade I and thereafter, on completion of 3 years of service on the post of MT DVR Grade I, shall be entitled for special grade. 11. In Para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner came up with the case that he was not permitted to appear in the Trade Test. Same is reproduced as follows: “6. That for the promotion from the post DRV MT (Ord) to MT DVR Grade II, it is necessary that the person has completed the nine years service as DRV MT (Ord) and passed the trade test. The petitioner had completed his nine years service in the year 2001 and the trade test was held by the respondents in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the petitioner was not permitted to appear for trade test on the ground of loss his left eye.” 12. The petitioner had completed his nine years service in the year 2001 and the trade test was held by the respondents in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the petitioner was not permitted to appear for trade test on the ground of loss his left eye.” 12. The reply in the counter affidavit to the same is contained in para 15. It reads as follows: “15. That the contents of para no. 6 of the writ petition strongly denied. The contention of the petitioner is not correct due to his involvement in C of I on MT accident on 27 Dec 2001 and also due to restriction on his employability, he might have not been considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) while conducting the Trade Test as and when he completed 08 years of regular service in the grade of DVRMT (Ord) for further promotion to DVRMT Grade-II nor he appear before the DPC willingly for Trade Test after finalization of his involvement in Court of Inquiry.” 13. Further, in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner came up with the case that after his injury, he was given active duty of driving since 27.10.2004. This fact has been replied by the appellant in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit in the following manner: - “That the contents of para no. 11 of the writ petition are not correct. The individual has been given an opportunity to appear before the DPC for promotion to DVRMT Gde-2 during Aug 2010. He has been promoted to DVRMT Gde-2 and assumed the present appointment of DVRMT Gde-2 wef 07 Oct 2011 against GREF Records PCPO No. 0997/GPII/DPC/DVRMT2/FA5 dated 12 Sep 2011. On reporting to this unit wef 30 Oct 2009, due to shortage of Drivers, petitioner has been deployed for driving of GREF veh at this unit for short distance adjacent to unit surroundings considering his present health by the department on its own risk and responsibility to tackle shortage of drivers in the unit, does not mean that the petitioner has been fit to drive vehicles at all account despite the loss of left eye. This unit has no comments about his past duties. ” 14. From the perusal of above paragraphs, it cannot be said that there is no denial by the appellants. 15. This unit has no comments about his past duties. ” 14. From the perusal of above paragraphs, it cannot be said that there is no denial by the appellants. 15. However, more importantly in the present case, we find that due to injury on his left eye, the petitioner could not discharge his duties to drive vehicle for some time. Though, in the year 2004, he was permitted to drive vehicle but for short distance only. The complaint of the petitioner that he was not permitted to appear in Trade Test cannot be accepted for two reasons. One, at the time of promotion of his juniors, the petitioner did not make any representation to the authority concerned. At that time itself, he could have made complaint and could have come to the Court. Secondly, the petitioner kept on waiting for many years and only after his promotion, he filed writ petition before the High Court in the year 2012. 16. Another aspect of the matter is that relevant rule provides that promotion on the post of MT DVR Grade II can only be made when a person qualifies the Trade Test. Admittedly, the petitioner did not qualify the Trade Test in the year 2001. Therefore, promotion cannot be given to him from 2001. The petitioner appeared in the Trade Test and qualified the same in the year 2010. Therefore, he was rightly given promotion from that year. In our view, the learned Single Judge erred by directing the appellant to grant promotion to the petitioner retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, judgment passed by learned Single Judge is set aside and writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.