JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition in WP(MD).No.21506 of 2015 dated 08.12.2020.) R. Vijayakumar, J. 1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants herein. 2. The Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the Management denying backwages, pay protection and continuity of service to the workman. The learned Single Judge has also directed to regularise the service of the workman from 09.04.2002 to 27.05.2015 as on duty, provide pay protection, continuity of service and backwages on par with his immediate junior or co-appointee by name S.Ponnar within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Factual background: 3. The writ petitioner was working as a driver in the first respondent Corporation. While he was on duty, he met with an accident on 08.04.2002, as a result of which, his right knee was amputated after surgery. The writ petitioner had appeared before the medical board which declared him to be unfit to discharge his duty as a driver. Based upon the said report of the medical board, the Management issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner on 21.07.2004, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service on medical grounds. The petitioner had sent a representation to the Management on 09.02.2005 requesting them to provide alternative employment with pay protection, continuity of service and attendant benefits as contemplated under the provisions of the rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 4. Since the request of the petitioner was not considered by the Management, the petitioner filed W.P(MD).No.7070 of 2005 in which an order was passed on 03.08.2005 directing the Management to consider the representation and pass orders. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the second respondent by its order dated 25.10.2005 rejected the request of the petitioner for alternative employment on the ground that Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is not applicable to the writ petitioner. 5. Though the Management did not continue to employ the writ petitioner, they neither discharged the petitioner on medical grounds nor paid any wages during the non-employment period. 5. Though the Management did not continue to employ the writ petitioner, they neither discharged the petitioner on medical grounds nor paid any wages during the non-employment period. On 17.06.2014, the writ petitioner was again referred to the medical board for the second time. The medical board sent its report on 15.07.2014 certifying that the petitioner is unfit to work as driver since he had suffered 65% of permanent disability. Even after receiving such a report, the Management has not initiated any further action. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P(MD).No.17507 of 2014 seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide him suitable alternative employment with pay protection, continuity of service and backwages from the date on which he was denied duty on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident. This writ petition was allowed by an order dated 30.10.2014 directing the Management to provide alternative employment with continuity of service and backwages. 6. On 21.05.2015, the Management passed an order denying the backwages on the ground that the petitioner did not report for duty after accident and hence, the Management is not liable to pay wages for the non-employment period. The second impugned order was passed on 26.05.2015 wherein the Management appointed the petitioner as a helper without mentioning about the pay protection and continuity of service. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition.(MD).No.611 of 2015. Pending contempt proceedings, the petitioner was served with third impugned order dated 19.06.2015 providing alternative employment with continuity of service, but as per the said order the period of non-employment was treated as leave on loss of pay and the Management contribution of Provident Fund cannot be remitted. All the above three impugned orders were challenged in W.P(MD).No.21506 of 2015. 7. The respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petitioner had remained dormant for nearly nine years without taking any steps after his non-employment due to accident. Hence, the said period could only be treated as a leave on loss of pay and the Management would not be in a position to contribute PF for the said period. 8. The respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petitioner had remained dormant for nearly nine years without taking any steps after his non-employment due to accident. Hence, the said period could only be treated as a leave on loss of pay and the Management would not be in a position to contribute PF for the said period. 8. After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge arrived at a finding that though the writ petitioner has not challenged the order dated 25.10.2005, in which, the request for alternative employment was rejected, the Management themselves realized their mistake and called the writ petitioner to appear before the Medical board for the second time and thereafter gave an alternative employment to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge further found that when there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Management to provide alternative employment to the workman who sustained injury while in service, the workman cannot be faulted with for not approaching the Court in time. On the basis of the said findings, the learned Single Judge set aside all the three impugned orders in respect of denial of backwages, pay protection and continuity of service to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from 09.04.2002 to 27.05.2015 as on duty, provide pay protection, continuity of service and backwages on par with his immediate junior. 9. This order is under challenge in the Writ Appeal. Contentions of the Counsel for the Appellants: 10. The learned counsel for the appellants/Management contended that the workman has challenged the show cause notice dated 21.07.2004 in which he was called to show cause why he should not be terminated for his disability. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD).No.210 of 2004. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 01.02.2005 and the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same. The learned counsel further contended that the request of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 25.10.2005. This order was also not challenged by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had remained dormant for more than nine years until he was referred to the medical board for the second time by the Management. The learned counsel further contended that the request of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 25.10.2005. This order was also not challenged by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had remained dormant for more than nine years until he was referred to the medical board for the second time by the Management. Since the writ petitioner had remained silent for more than nine years without evincing any interest to claim alternative employment, the learned Single judge was not right in granting continuity of service for the said nine year period also. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that it is settled position of law that a workman will not be entitled to backwages automatically for the non-employment period, just because he is reinstated. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal. Contentions of the Counsel for the Respondent: 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the workman/driver contended that when the management is under a statutory obligation to provide alternative employment to the writ petitioner due to disability sustained while in service, the petitioner's silence cannot take away the rights of the petitioner. He further contended that no formal order has been passed by the Management either discharging him on medical ground or terminating him from service. Hence, the petitioner should be deemed to be in service of the appellants Corporation. When the petitioner is deemed to be in service of the appellant Corporation, automatically he is entitled to backwages, continuity of service and pay protection for the period of his non employment. He further contended that the non-employment for the said nine years is not due to the fault of the petitioner, but due to the wrong understanding of Management that Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is not applicable to the Management. When the Management was under wrong impression about the applicability of a particular enactment, the workman cannot be found fault with, especially when he has lost his right leg due to amputation. Hence, he prayed for confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. Discussion: 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner suffered disablement. Hence, he prayed for confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. Discussion: 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner suffered disablement. Though the Management had issued a show cause notice on 21.07.2004 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be terminated on the ground of disablement, no orders were passed by the Management thereafter. Admittedly, the Management has rejected the request of the petitioner for alternative employment by its order dated 25.10.2005 in violation of provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 15. The Management on its own while reviewing the case of medically disabled persons had voluntarily called the workman to appear before the Medical board on 10.07.2014 and thereafter, had provided alternative employment to the writ petitioner from 14.11.2015. The narration of the above sequence of events will clearly indicate that the petitioner cannot be faulted with for the delay of nine years for his reinstatement. 16. The issue now that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would be entitled to claim wages during the non-employment period namely 09.04.2002 to 13.11.2015. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent/workman, on instruction, submitted that his client is ready to give up the backwages for the period between 09.04.2002 to 13.11.2015. The said statement is taken on record. 18. The Management has not issued any formal order discharging the petitioner from service at any point of time. The Management has also not called upon the writ petitioner to attend the duty or initiated any disciplinary proceedings for not attending duty from 09.04.2002 onwards. 19. In the light of the above said facts and the statutory obligation imposed upon the Management in view of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to granting of pay protection and continuity of service to the writ petitioner. 20. Considering the above said facts, we are inclined to pass the following orders: (i). The writ petitioner shall not be entitled to backwages for the period covering from 09.04.2002 to 13.11.2015. (ii). 20. Considering the above said facts, we are inclined to pass the following orders: (i). The writ petitioner shall not be entitled to backwages for the period covering from 09.04.2002 to 13.11.2015. (ii). However, the above said period shall be treated as a pensionable service and the Management is directed to pay contribution towards pension scheme for the above said period also. (iii). The Management shall notionally calculate the increments covering the above said period and salary of the petitioner shall be re-fixed accordingly from 14.11.2015 onwards. (iv) .On such re-fixation, arrears if any, shall be paid to the petitioner with effect from 14.11.2015 onwards. (v). The above said period shall be treated as a period in service for all purposes except for actual payment of backwages. Conclusion: 20. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above. In all other respects, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.