7.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner was working as Conductor from 15.04.1986 and due to an accident and bone injury, he was certified by the Medical Board as unfit to work as Conductor. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have given an alternative employment with pay protection and continuity of service as per Section 47(1) of the Act. The respondents erred in discharging the petitioner from service. Subsequently, again, the respondents erred in appointing the petitioner as Helper as a fresh entrant. The respondents have not followed the statutory provisions, containing under Section 47 (1) of the Act. The petitioner is entitled for pay protection and continuity of service as per the beneficial legislation, which came into force to give pay protection to the persons like the petitioner, who became disabled during service. In the present case, the petitioner has given a representation dated 26.02.2018 and approached this Court after 18 years of appointment as Helper as a fresh entrant. Therefore, he will not be entitled for any monetary benefits, but, he is entitled to continuity of service and pay protection, as the respondents have failed to provide suitable alternative employment with pay protection as per the Act. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the period from 15.06.1998 to 28.02.2000 and difference of salary from 28.02.2000 to the date of his retirement i.e, on 30.06.2019. The respondents are directed to calculate the terminal benefits and grant continuity of service, within a period twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
