JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With consent of learned counsel for parties the
petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner was employed as a conductor with
respondent DTC and while performing his official duty on
7.3.1987 met with an accident resulting in fracture of bones
of his right leg. The respondent workman requested for
light duty. Disputes arose between the parties about the
post which the respondent should occupy. In September 1992
respondent was considered by the Medical Board which
declared him permanently medically unfit. The respondent
raised the industrial dispute in 1992 and an award was
passed on 23rd August, 1996 in which it was held that the
case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in SLP
1575/1991. Ved Prakash Singh v. DTC, in which it was held
that the workman is entitled to reinstatement to equivalent
light post of class III employee with continuity of service.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and during the course of hearing it was put to the learned
counsel for petitioner that the respondent would be entitled
to the protection under the Persons With Disability (Equal
Opportunities. Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Which
came into effect on 1.1.1996 and in view of the same the
challenge to the impugned award directing reinstatement and
consequential benefits may be futile.
5. In another case of a DTC employee who retired
prematurely on medical ground, this Court in CW 5700/2000
Rajbir Singh v. DTC & Others, decided on 24.1.2002 allowed
the writ petition and quashed the order of termination with
consequential benefits in terms of Section 47 of the said
Act. In view of the Act having came in to force and in view
of the impugned award dated 23.8.1996. I am of the
considered view that the petitioner should be directed to
take the respondent back into service and pay the salary
from the date when the petitioner stopped paying full salary
after termination of his service. The petitioner would be
treated as in continuous employment without any break in
service. In case the petitioner is not fit to perform duty
which he was performing since the initial appointment till
his disability, the respondent shall deal with the case of
the petitioner in terms of proviso to Section 47 of the said
Act.
6. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Parties to bear their own costs.