The Allahabad High Court has ruled that if an employee develops a disability during the course of their employment, the employer must not terminate them outright but should instead attempt to assign them to a suitable role. Justice Abdul Moin, in his judgment, emphasized that the rehabilitative approach required by law must prevail over dismissal.
Case Background
The employee in question had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2013. However, on August 2, 2016, he suffered a brain stroke, which impaired his ability to perform his teaching duties, including speaking and writing. When he sought to resume work on August 20, 2024, the authorities refused to allow him to rejoin.
A committee was formed to evaluate his fitness. It concluded that he could not carry out teaching responsibilities, and as such, denied his reemployment. The authorities also contended that he had been absent for a prolonged period (since October 2021) and had not submitted a valid request during that time.
Legal Position & Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel maintained that the employee should be placed in an equivalent position, relying on protections provided under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
On the other side, the respondents argued that there had been a failure to comply with procedural rules (such as absence during service) and that the committee had determined he was unfit for teaching work.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Justice Abdul Moin noted that no medical board was properly constituted, despite medical evidence of the stroke being placed before the authorities. Instead, a senior physician on the committee assessed the employee’s condition as part of the evaluation process.
Relying on Section 20 of the 2016 Act, the Court held that once a disability arises during service, an employee cannot simply be dismissed. Under the Act:
The employer must attempt to shift the employee to a post appropriate to his abilities, with the same pay and benefits, if the original post has become unsuitable.
If no such post is available, the employee may be kept on a supernumerary position (i.e., an extra or additional post) until either a suitable position is found or until retirement, whichever occurs first.
The Court also drew on the precedent of Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others, stressing that the legal system must offer adjustments rather than exclusion when disability intervenes during service.
Consequently, the Court directed that the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Barabanki, identify a suitable post for the petitioner. If no such post is available immediately, he must be retained in a supernumerary post until either a proper opening arises or he reaches retirement. The Court further ordered the period of his absence (from the time he could no longer serve until this judgment) to be regularized in line with applicable rules.
