RAJ NARAIN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable in the year 1971. Thereafter, he has been continued in service as regular employee of the department. In pursuance to order passed by the competent authority, the petitioner was appeared before a Medical Board on 22.1.1986 at Lucknow. The Medical Board on 22.1.1986 had given opinion that petitioner is unfit to be retained in service as he is suffering from a disease called "Motor Neuron disease involving all the four limbs". After receipt of report from Medical Board by the impugned order petitioner's services were dispensed with subject to payment of disability pension w.e.f. 22.1.1986.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 47 of the "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short hereinafter referred as Act). The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision contained in Section 47 of the Act the impugned order suffer from substantial illegality and it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to adjust the petitioner on any post for which he suitable to discharge duty. Section 47 for convenience is reproduced as under :