According to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation, Act 1995), the Andhra Pradesh High Court permitted payment of wages to a worker from the date he became disabled while performing his job until he was given alternative employment. According to the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Disabled Welfare & State Commissioner, and the Commissioner instructed the Corporation to consider the petitioner's claim in light of Section 47 of the 1995 Act in 2006. As a result, starting in 2007, the petitioner's services were used at bus pass stations. The petitioner asked the Corporation for payment of salary for the interim period spanning 2001–2007, however, the Corporation never responded.
In the instant case titled Ch.S. Rajeswara Rao v Govt of AP, transport department the issue raised before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was:
Whether the petitioner can be granted back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension?
With regard to the issue, the court noted that a worker who becomes disabled while on the job is expressly requested to be protected under Section 47 of the Act. If such an employee were not protected, his dependents as well as himself would likely suffer in the event that he became disabled. The structure and language of Section 47 make clear that it is required.
The petitioner did not abandon his claim and continued to ask for the wage arrears by filing submissions, the court noted based on the facts in the record. Normally, someone only approaches the court as a last resort, and in the case of a disabled person, the petitioner had to do so only after discovering that there was no chance of justice from the respondent Corporation.
The petitioner's disability was a locomotor impairment that was covered by Section 2(i)(v) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the 1995 Act, making his case subject to Section 47 of the Act and the Workman can claim back wages as there was statutory protection of Section 47 of the 1995 Act.
The court categorically stated that:
“Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from Sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce.”
Hence, the writ petition was allowed and the Corporation was directed to pay full salary to the petitioner for the interregnum period.