In a significant judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that employees who acquire a disability during their service are entitled to continued salary, benefits, and a supernumerary post, along with interest on any withheld dues. The decision was delivered by Justice Aman Chaudhary, emphasizing the need for employers to be sensitive to the plight of employees who suffer disabilities while in service.
Background of the Case
The case involved a petitioner who joined as an E.T.T. Teacher at Government Primary School, Sodhi Nagar, Ferozepur, on September 11, 2016. On March 8, 2017, while on her way to school, she met with a severe accident that left her 90% permanently disabled. The accident rendered her lower body, legs, arms, and hands non-functional, leaving her bedridden and unable to perform basic tasks like signing documents. A medical certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, on January 22, 2019, confirmed her condition, though her mental faculties remained intact.
The petitioner’s financial condition was dire, and she became entirely dependent on her family for support. Despite her condition, she was placed on medical leave without pay from the date of the accident, which also prevented her from completing her probation period.
In December 2021, the District Education Officer (SS), Ferozepur, recommended her case to the Director of the Education Department, urging the release of her salary on sympathetic grounds. The recommendation cited a 2015 Government of India directive stating that employees who become incapacitated during service should be provided financial benefits and salary. However, the request was denied by the authorities.
Petitioner’s Claims
Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of her salary and other admissible benefits from the date of the accident. She argued that her disability was acquired during her service and that her financial condition had worsened due to the lack of income. She also highlighted her complete dependence on her family for survival.
Respondent’s Defense
The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioner’s monthly salary had been paid from the date of the accident. However, they failed to provide any justification or evidence to support this claim.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The court expressed disappointment at the lack of sensitivity shown by the state, which is expected to function as a welfare state. It noted that the petitioner’s situation was tragic and could have been handled more compassionately. The court also pointed out that the respondents’ claim of paying the salary was unsubstantiated, as no reasons or proof were provided.
The court referred to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandates that if an employee acquires a disability during service, they must be shifted to another post with the same pay scale and benefits. If such a shift is not possible, a supernumerary post should be created to ensure the employee continues to receive their salary and benefits until retirement.
The court also relied on previous judgments, including Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana and J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana, where similar cases were decided in favor of the employees. In Ram Kumar, the court had ruled that an employee who became 100% disabled due to a road accident was entitled to arrears of salary and consequential benefits. In J.S. Cheema, the court held that if any amount belonging to an employee is retained by the department, the employee is entitled to interest on that amount.
Court’s Decision
The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to her salary, all admissible benefits, and interest on the withheld amount. It observed that the money rightfully belonging to the petitioner had been in the custody of the state and used by it, making the petitioner eligible for interest.
With these observations, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to release the petitioner’s salary, benefits, and interest without further delay. This judgment reinforces the rights of employees who suffer disabilities during service and underscores the responsibility of employers, especially the state, to act with compassion and fairness in such cases.