ORDER : Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The issue raised in this set of cases is whether benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is available to those covered by Section 2(i) of the said Act alone or applies even to persons not covered thereby. 5. The employees in question suffered disability during employment and they sought benefit of Section 47 of the Act to the effect that their services could not be dispensed with on account of the said disability, nor their rank could be reduced and they could only be shifted to some other post, with same pay-scale and service benefits. The claim was contested by the appellants-Transport Corporations with the plea that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act was available only to those covered by Section 2(i) which defines "disability". The said stand was supported on the basis of judgments of the High Court of Delhi in the cases of Hawa Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation dated 3.2.2012 in W.P.(C)No.7880 of 2011 & Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh dated 14.12.2005 in L.P.A. No. 1601 of 2005. The High Court of Delhi dissented from the judgment of the Madras High Court in G. Muthu v. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, (2006) 4 MLJ 1669 which lays down that the definition under Section 2(i) could not control the provision of Section 47 of the Act, as the context of Section 47 of the Act requires a different meaning to be given to the word "disability". 6. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court which has been followed in the impugned order and approve the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in Hawa Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh. We do not find any reason to hold that expression "disability" in Section 47 of the Act is used in a different context so as not to go by the definition given in Section 2(i) of the Act. We do not find any reason to hold that expression "disability" in Section 47 of the Act is used in a different context so as not to go by the definition given in Section 2(i) of the Act. We also note that even though Section 2(i) of the Act may not cover every disabled, scheme of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporations covers even those employees who are not covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. Thus, those who are disabled within the meaning of Section 2(i) are not without any benefit whatsoever. They are, thus, entitled to invoke such schemes but not Section 47 of the Act. 7. In view of above, we allow these appeals in above terms and hold that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act will be available only to those who are covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. No costs. 8. It will be open for the appellants-Corporations to take decision on individual grievances of the employees and the employees are at liberty to take their remedies in terms of the above judgment. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.