ORDER : D. Hariparanthaman, J. The petitioner was a conductor employed by the respondent Corporation. While he was on duty on 26.02.2010 in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-1870, the said bus involved in an accident and the petitioner's right leg got fractured, ie., he met with an accident while he was discharging his duties as a conductor. Thereafter, he was provided light duty on 30.06.2014 by way of alternative employment and the same was continued upto 29.06.2015. In the mean time, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to provide alternative employment to him as Cashier, by protecting the pay of the conductor. 2. After 29.06.2015, the respondents did not continue the petitioner in the alternative employment and thereafter an order dated 06.07.2015 was passed by the respondents providing the petitioner alternative employment till the High Level Committee takes a decision. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner prayed for alternative employment as Cashier, the petitioner would be satisfied if any alternative employment is provided protecting his pay as Conductor, as per Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("Act" in short). 4. It is useful to extract Section 47 of the Act, as under: "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 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." 5. (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." 5. As per Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, an employee shall not be discharged from service on a finding that he is unfit to hold the post due to medical reasons. On the other hand, he shall be provided any alternative employment, ie., he cannot suffer due to non-employment, due to his unfitness on medical reasons. Hence, in all cases where the employees are discharged on the ground of unfitness and provided alternative employment subsequently, they are entitled to wages for the period of non-employment. It is a well settled principle. 6. In this context, it is useful to extract Paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported in 2008(2) L.L.N. 1 : "17. From the materials brought before the Court by none other than the respondent-Board it is manifest that notwithstanding the clear and definite legislative mandate some officers of the Board took the view that it was not right to continue a blind, useless man on the Board's rolls and to pay him monthly salary in return of no service. They accordingly persuaded each other that the appellant had himself asked for retirement from service and, therefore, he was not entitled to the protection of the Act... 18. ... 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 was 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. 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 the 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 of largesse but their right as equal citizens of the country. 20. In 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 March 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 March 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." 7. In view of the discussions of the Apex Court, the respondent-Corporation is directed not to discharge any workman, who is found not suitable for the post due to the acquiring of disability, but to provide alternative employment with pay protection, as per Section 47 of the Act. Particularly in cases where workmen acquired disability during and out of employment and the same is very well known to the Corporation, the respondent Corporation has also moral responsibility besides the legal duty under Section 47 of the Act to provide alternative employment and the workmen shall be paid wages during the interregnum, if any. 8. Particularly in cases where workmen acquired disability during and out of employment and the same is very well known to the Corporation, the respondent Corporation has also moral responsibility besides the legal duty under Section 47 of the Act to provide alternative employment and the workmen shall be paid wages during the interregnum, if any. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for counting the service from 26.02.2010 till the petitioner was given alternative employment, for all purposes, except for actual payment of wages. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the service after the accident is counted till the petitioner was given alternative employment, for the purpose of fixing of pay, promotion, review, increment, pension etc., the petitioner would be satisfied. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is not claiming any actual monetary benefit for the said period. 9. In these circumstances, the following directions are given: (a) The writ petitioner shall be continued in the alternative employment without any interruption and his pay as Conductor shall be protected as if he continued in service without any interruption in service. (b) If the respondent Transport Corporation has any doubt in his fitness to continue as Conductor, he should be referred to the Medical Board and based on the opinion of the Medical Board, he can be continued in the alternative employment or he can be sent as Conductor, ie., if the Medical Board finds him unfit to do the work of the Conductor, he should be continued in the alternative employment and if the Medical Board finds him fit to do the work of the Conductor, he should be directed to do the work of the Conductor. (c) It is reiterated that the petitioner shall be continued in the alternative employment as stated above, and the pay shall be protected and the service from 26.02.2010 till he was provided alternative employment shall be counted for all purposes, except for making actual monetary benefits. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.