JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is a driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (‘KSRTC’ for short). He challenges Exhibit P3 order cancelling the first time bound higher grade granted to him and seeks directions to sanction the time bound higher grades which he would be entitled to on completion of fifteen years of service. The petitioner contends that he had met with an accident while in service on 2.8.2004 and that this had resulted in extensive injuries. He relies on Exhibit P1 certificate issued by the medical authorities to contend that he had suffered 25% disability and it had been certified that he could not perform his job as a driver. There is a two inch shortening of the lower limb and severe sensory impairment in his left leg. The petitioner had been accommodated on light duty in Stores as Store Issuer by Exhibit P2 order dated 27.1.2009. He was granted the grade promotion eligible to him on account of his length of service as well. 3. However, by Exhibit P3 order, it is stated that the petitioner is not eligible to get grade promotions as Driver Grade I and Driver Selection Grade, since he was on light duty. It is stated that the grade promotions granted should therefore be cancelled. Though the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P4 request before the Managing Director, it is stated that the same has not been acted upon. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is contended that grade promotions on completion of 15 and 18 years of service are granted only to those employees who perform duty in the respective posts. It is stated that going by provisions of Exhibit R1(a) bipartite settlement, service in a post outside the prescribed channel of promotion shall not be counted as qualifying service for grade promotion. It is stated that it was accepting these conditions that the petitioner had availed the light duty posting outside the regular channel and therefore the said period could not be counted for grade promotion as Driver Grade I and Driver (Selection Grade). 5. It is stated that it was accepting these conditions that the petitioner had availed the light duty posting outside the regular channel and therefore the said period could not be counted for grade promotion as Driver Grade I and Driver (Selection Grade). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on S.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to contend that where light duty is allotted to a person on account of a disability suffered by him while in service, the normal rule that the said period could not be counted for grade promotion cannot be pressed into service. It is further stated that since ‘disability’ and ‘persons with disability’ are distinctly defined in the Act, there is no justification for contending that only a person with 40% disability is entitled to claim the protection of S.47. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC, would, on the other hand, contend that S.47 provides for special benefits for persons who suffer a disability while in service and that to make a person eligible for the benefit of S.47, the disability should be of such a nature that it renders him to unfit to carry out duties of the post in question. It is, therefore, contended that it is only in cases where persons suffer 40% disability while in service that the benefit under S.47 can be claimed as of right. It is further contended that it is only in such cases that the period of other duty can be taken into account for granting grade promotions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 524 ). It is contended that the protection of S.47 is applicable to all employees who acquire disability while in service and there is no requirement that the disability should be of such a nature as to answer the definition of ‘person with disability’ as provided in S.2(t) of the Act. 8. The learned standing counsel relies on the definition of ‘locomotor disability’ as provided in S.2(o) of the Act, as also the decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director & Ors. 8. The learned standing counsel relies on the definition of ‘locomotor disability’ as provided in S.2(o) of the Act, as also the decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director & Ors. v. B.S. Reddy AIR 2017 SC 1621 = 2017 (2) KHC 729) and contends that the benefit of S.47 will be available to only those who are covered under S.2(i) of the Act and not others. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. S.2(i) of the Act defines ‘disability’ as meaning (i) blindness, (ii)low vision, (iii) leprosy-cured, (iv) hearing impairment, (v) locomotor disability, (vi) mental retardation and (vii) mental illness. S.2(o) defines ‘locomotor disability’ as follows :- “Locomotor disability’ means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of the cerebral palsy. Section 2(t) reads as follows :- “person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. 10. Chapter VI of the Act that provides for employment of disabled persons speaks about identification and reservation of posts for persons with disability. Chapter VIII deals with non-discrimination. S.47 which falls in Chapter VIII of the Act 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 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.” 11. It is clear from a reading of S.47 that what is contemplated is the acquisition of disability during service. It is clear from a reading of S.47 that what is contemplated is the acquisition of disability during service. From a plain reading of S.47, it is clear that the requirement of a disability to the extent of 40% is not a requirement for making an employee eligible for protection from discrimination as provided in the Section. S.47(2) specifically states that the person shall not be denied of promotion on account of the disability acquired while in service. If that be so, the benefit of a grade promotion can also not be denied only on account of the said disability. 12. It is not in dispute before me that the petitioner had acquired 25% locomotor disability on account of an accident while he was in service as a driver in K.S.R.T.C. He had been accommodated on light duty by Exhibit P2 order as Store Issuer on account of the said disability suffered by him. His pay in the post of driver was protected. This evidently was an order passed with reference to S.47 of the Act. The finding in Exhibit P3 audit note to the effect that the petitioner cannot claim the benefits of grade promotion, since he had worked on light duty outside regular channel cannot, therefore, be countenanced, in the light of protection as provided in S.47. As stated earlier, if the petitioner is entitled for promotions in terms of S.47, grade promotions, if he would otherwise be entitled to, also cannot be denied to him on account of him being unable to continue as driver because of the disability suffered by him. 13. In the above view of the matter, the finding in paragraph 3 of Exhibit P3 order is completely unsustainable. The same is set aside, There will be a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the grade promotions in the post of driver Grade I and Selection Grade taking note of the periods spent on light duty on account of disability suffered by him as well. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.