Allahabad High Court: Employee Who Acquires Disability During Service Cannot Be Dismissed, Must Be Shifted to Suitable Post

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that if an employee acquires a disability during the course of service, their employment cannot be terminated. Instead, the employer must make efforts to shift the employee to a suitable post in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Justice Abdul Moin, while referring to Section 20 (Non-Discrimination in Employment) of the Act, observed:

“Where an employee acquires a disability during service, his or her services are not to be dispensed with. The employer must make efforts to shift such an employee to a suitable post, and if no such post is available, the employee should be continued on a supernumerary post until one becomes available.”

The case involved a petitioner appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2013, who suffered a brain stroke on August 2, 2016, rendering him unable to perform his teaching duties. When he tried to rejoin duty on August 20, 2024, he was not permitted to resume work.

A committee was later formed by the respondents to assess his condition, and it concluded that the petitioner was unable to write or speak, making him unfit for teaching duties. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he should be appointed to an equivalent post as per the benefits granted under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The respondents, however, argued that the petitioner had remained absent from October 1, 2021, and only submitted a representation on August 30, 2024, after three years of absence. They also relied on the committee’s report declaring him unfit for teaching duties.

The Court noted that no medical board was constituted to formally examine the petitioner’s case, even though medical documents were provided showing that he had suffered a brain stroke.

Referring to Section 20(4) of the 2016 Act, the Court emphasized that a government employee who acquires a disability during service cannot be dismissed. If such an employee is unable to continue in the same post, he or she must be shifted to another post with the same pay and benefits. If no such post exists, the employee must be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable vacancy arises or until retirement, whichever comes first.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others, which held that when a disability is acquired during employment, the system must respond with adjustment rather than exclusion.

Although no formal medical board was set up in this case, the Court observed that a senior physician, who was part of the committee, had evaluated the petitioner and found him unfit for teaching. However, the High Court ruled that, in light of the Ch. Joseph judgment, the authorities were required to identify an alternative post suitable for the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Barabanki, to act in compliance with the 2016 Act and the Ch. Joseph ruling by identifying a suitable post for the petitioner. If no such post is available, he must be placed on a supernumerary post until one becomes available or until his superannuation, whichever occurs earlier.

The Court further ordered that the period between the petitioner’s absence and the issuance of this order should be regularized as per service rules.

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)