Disabled Employees should not be Terminated From Jobs: Supreme Court

On August 1, the Supreme Court made it clear once again that if an employee develops a disability during their service, the employer must protect their rights by offering them a suitable alternative job — unless there are no such positions available.

This ruling came in a case involving a bus driver from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) who was terminated from his job after he developed colour blindness, a condition that made him medically unfit to continue driving. However, instead of trying to find him another suitable role, the employer simply ended his employment.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar criticized APSRTC for failing to even attempt to find a suitable non-driving job for the employee. The Court said:

“Employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or forced into early retirement without being given a fair chance at reassignment.”

The judges further observed that supporting disabled employees is not just a kindness or administrative choice — it is a constitutional and legal obligation that comes from the values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.

They added:

“If an employee is removed from their job due to a condition they did not choose, and if alternatives are ignored, the Court is not interfering unnecessarily — it is standing up for the Constitution. An employer’s freedom stops where the employee’s dignity begins.”

The bus driver, while employed with APSRTC, developed colour blindness and was declared unfit to drive. He was terminated from service without being offered any alternative job.

APSRTC argued that a 1986 agreement (Memorandum of Settlement or MoS) did not require them to provide alternate employment. However, an earlier 1979 MoS specifically required the employer to provide another job to drivers who become colour blind.

The employee had even requested reassignment to the role of Shramik, a position that doesn’t require normal colour vision. But APSRTC made no effort to assess his request or the availability of that post.

The Court rejected APSRTC’s argument and said:

• Just because a person becomes unfit for one role (like driving), doesn’t mean they are unfit for all jobs.
• The 1979 agreement (which specifically talks about colour blindness) takes priority over the 1986 agreement, which is more general.
• The employer had a duty to assess whether a suitable job was available and to accommodate the employee accordingly.

This view was supported by a previous Supreme Court case — Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) — where the Court held that when an employee acquires a disability, the employer must try to retain them by assigning a suitable alternative job.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s earlier decision, which had supported APSRTC’s action and ordered APSRTC to offer a suitable job to the employee based on his condition, place him in a post with the same pay grade andcComplete the process within 8 weeks from the date of receiving the order.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is a strong reminder that employers — especially in the public sector — have a legal duty to support employees who become disabled during service. Rather than removing them from service, they must make sincere efforts to accommodate and retain such employees in dignified roles, as part of their constitutional and moral responsibility.

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