JUDGMENT
Singh, CJ.
1. By this writ petition the petitioners challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 25.9.2002 passed in O.A. No. 398/97. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as follows:-
2. On 21.3.1980 the private respondent was appointed as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, on 4.3.1991 his services were regularised. On 30.4.1996, a medical board was constituted, for his medical examination. After the receipt of the opinion of the medical board his services were terminated on 30.9.1996 as he was found to be unfit for government service on account of medical disability. With effect from the same date the said respondent was granted disability pension. The private respondent feeling aggrieved by his termination, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The Tribunal, vide impugned order, directed as follows:-
“Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed. The order Annex.A.1 is hereby quashed. The applicant shall be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order under Section 47 of the Act within a period of 15 days of the communication of this order. No order as to costs.”
As is clear from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the order terminating the services of he private respondent dated 30.9.1996 was quashed and he was deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal also directed the petitioners to pass appropriate orders Under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”).
3. Mr. M. Bhandari and Mr. B. Bagri, learned counsel appearing from the petitioners submit that the Tribunal erred in giving the aforesaid directions to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the private respondent has acquired a medical disability as a result of which he is unable to perform the duties of his post. The learned counsel urged that the disease from which he is suffering has reduced his mental faculty to the level of a ten years old child. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Act are in conflict with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, and this being so, the former act must give way to the later Acts.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners. We find that the submissions have no force at all. According to Section 2(i) of the Act, “disability” means – blindness; low Division; leprosy-cured; hearing impairment; loco-motor disability; mental retardation; and mental illness. Thus, mental retardation is one of the disabilities covered under the provisions of the Act. That apart, Section 2(t) of the Act lays down that “person with disability” means – a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. It is not the case of petitioners that the private respondent was suffering from a disability which was less than forty per cent. The petitioners as well as the private respondent have proceeded in the matter on the basis that the disability of the private respondent was more than forty per cent. In fact it was argued before us that the private respondent was totally disabled, in as much as, he was not able to discharge the duties of his office because of his mental retardation. After having made that argument, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the Act is not applicable as the petitioners had not urged and established that the private respondent was suffering from a disability which was not less than forty per cent.
5. It is noteworthy that the Act was promulgated to fulfill the International Treaty, Obligations of the State. A meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993- 2002, convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, was held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992, which adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. India was a signatory to the said Proclamation. It was considered necessary by the Government of India to carry out its obligation under the Proclamation. As a consequence of the treaty obligation of the State the Parliament enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Therefore, if any enactment has to give way, it is the earlier enactments. They must yield to the latter legislation which was enacted to fulfill the International Treaty Obligation of the State.
6. Section 72 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder, enacted or issued for the benefit of persons with disabilities.
7. The petitioners are suffering from a misconception that the provisions of the Act are in derogation of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The person who acquires disability during service is required to be granted benefit of disability pension under the aforesaid Rules. But, Under Section 47 of the Act, a further benefit has been conferred on the person who acquires disability during service by providing that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. Proviso to Section 47 makes it clear 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. Thus, even if no suitable post is available, the person who is suffering from disability, has to be kept on a supernumerary post. This is the mandate of the Act, which cannot be ignored. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the private respondent had no capacity to perform his duties, is of no consequence.
8. Article 14 of the Constitution of India of India provides that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, of education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, in other cases of undeserved want in the light of the aforesaid Directive Principle of the State Policy, the legislation, which is meant for giving benefit to the disabled, must be given full effect to.
In view of the aforesaid reasoning, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that within one month from today the order of the Tribunal shall be implemented. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, thirty days are granted to the petitioners to comply with the order of the Tribunal.
Writ petition disposed of.