Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC
'While judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice. When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself,' said a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, in a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional right to dignity and equality in employment.
The August 1 judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver who was compulsorily retired in 2016 after being diagnosed with colour blindness. Coming down hard on TSRTC for its failure to consider alternative roles for the driver, who had expressed willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post, the court held that this omission was not just an administrative lapse, but a violation of both statutory obligations and constitutional principles.
The judgment drew upon the principle that public employers are duty-bound to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to employees who acquire disabilities during service. Retirement on medical grounds, the court said, must be a measure of last resort, only after all viable options for redeployment have been exhausted.
'The obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, dignity and equal treatment,' noted the bench.
The judgment further drew strength from a consistent line of rulings to reaffirm that beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively to protect the rights of disabled employees. 'Employment security is central not only to individual dignity but also to familial survival,' said the court, emphasising that livelihood cannot be severed 'by the stroke of a medical certificate' without first exhausting all avenues for reassignment.
The court cited the example of the driver seeking reassignment to the post of Shramik (helper) , a job that did not require normal colour vision. However, the Corporation did not even attempt to assess his suitability for such a role. According to the bench, the burden lies on the employer, not the employee, to prove that no suitable post exists or can be reasonably created.
The court also referenced the pertinent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and a binding memorandum of settlement signed by TSRTC in 1979, which explicitly mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers with pay protection and continuity of service. The court ruled that TSRTC failed to comply with this binding obligation, adding that internal circulars cited by the Corporation in denying alternate employment, were merely administrative instructions and could not override statutory service conditions created by an industrial settlement.
The bench further made it clear that even in the absence of such a settlement, constitutional and statutory principles demand the accommodation of employees who develop disabilities. 'This obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation,' it stated.
The bench thus ordered the Corporation to appoint the driver to a suitable post consistent with his condition, at the same pay grade he held in 2016, within eight weeks. It also directed payment of 25% of arrears from the date of retirement until reinstatement and held that the intervening period must be treated as continuous service.
'In doing so, we not only vindicate the appellant's rights but also reaffirm our constitutional commitment to a just and humane employer-employee relationship,' the bench concluded.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana HC rejects advocate's plea to shift cases from a judge over ‘conflict of interest'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday dismissed an advocate's petition to shift three of her ongoing cases from a particular judge's court, citing 'jurisdictional limitations'. The petition stemmed from the judge's involvement with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) during a time when the advocate allegedly faced harassment from its members. A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry ruled that it does not have the power to transfer cases to another bench within the high court or to another high court, adding that the advocate was free to explore other legal options. The petitioner, a 37-year-old advocate from a Scheduled Caste background, had also asked for an order preventing her future cases from being listed before the same judge. In her petition, the advocate described being sexually harassed by a district attorney in Gurgaon in 2022. She also stated that BCPH members barred her entry, adding that she had been targeted with false complaints, including one that resulted in a legal notice later quashed by the court. She argued that the judge's earlier association with the BCPH created a conflict of interest and violated the principle that 'nobody can be a judge in their own cause'. The advocate further stated that a contempt notice issued against her on July 22 was an attempt to pressure her into withdrawing allegations against a senior police officer. On the question of transferring the cases to another court, Chief Justice Nagu said, 'So far as the prayer of transferring the aforesaid three cases to any other High Court is concerned, the same cannot be granted since this Court is not vested with any such power; the petitioner for this purpose is free to approach the appropriate Forum.' The judges clarified that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high court's role is limited to reviewing the actions of the state or its agencies. If the petitioner disagrees with decisions made by a single judge, the appropriate course is to appeal through a letter patent appeal (LPA) or approach the Supreme Court, they said. The bench noted, 'Pertinently, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to assess the legality and validity of orders passed by the State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 by seeking one of the writs or for performance of any public function. The remedy against an order passed by learned Single Judge in civil or criminal jurisdiction is either by filing an LPA by demonstrating that the Single Bench passed the order overstepping the jurisdictional purviews, or by approaching the Higher Court i.e. the Apex Court.' 'Accordingly, this Court declines interference and leaves it to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under the law,' the bench concluded.
Economic Times
a minute ago
- Economic Times
Tripura CPI-M, Tipra Motha Party slam Delhi Police for referring to Bengali as a 'Bangladeshi language'
Synopsis In a heated response, the CPI-M and Tipra Motha Party in Tripura have denounced the Delhi Police's characterisation of Bengali as merely a 'Bangladeshi language.' They passionately asserted that Bengali is an integral part of India's linguistic heritage, enshrined in the Constitution. ANI A Delhi Police verification drive to identify illegal Bangladeshi immigrants at Shaheen Bagh area, in New Delhi Guwahati: CPI-M and the ruling BJP's ally Tipra Motha Party (TMP), on Tuesday, criticised the Delhi Police for referring to Bengali as a "Bangladeshi language".Leader of Opposition Jitendra Chaudhury, who is also the Tripura CPI-M Secretary, said that Bengali language (also known as Bangla language) is one of the 22 Indian languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian added, "In Northeast India, there are many languages with more than 200 dialects. One should not be identified with his language. Due respect must be given to all people irrespective of his mother tongue and culture.'He added that the way Delhi Police presented the matter is most unfortunate and there is no language in the world as "Bangladeshi language".Chaudhury, also a CPI-M Politburo member, told the media that Bengali is the second most spoken language in India after Hindi. The Left leader alleges that hate activities against Bengali language and speakers in BJP-ruled states are often reported."The national anthem of India was written in Bengali, and now the language is being insulted," he has been an outcry after a letter from a Delhi Police Inspector at the Lodhi Colony police station -- seeking a translator for the "Bangladeshi language" in connection with a matter at Banga Bhawan (the guest house of the West Bengal government in national capital) -- went viral on social use of the term "Bangladeshi language" to refer to Bangla sparked strong protests and criticism in Tripura, Assam and other ally TMP also criticised the Delhi Police for terming Bengali language as "Bangladeshi language".TMP Supremo Pradyot Bikram Manikya Debbarma said that it is most unexpected to refer Bengali language as a 'Bangladeshi language' by the Delhi Police."Today it is Bengali, tomorrow it can be any other language. There is no such thing called Bangladeshi language. People of Bangladesh also spoke in Bengali language. The Bengali language also has different dialects," Debbarma told the media. He said: "We should not forget that our national anthem 'Jana Gana Mana' was originally composed in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore. In our Northeast region there are many languages with more than 200 dialects. People should be respectful of each other's languages."
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their official functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officers were not shielded. Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said if honest public servants were made vulnerable because of vexatious complaints, they would not function at all and this might lead to a "policy paralysis". The apex court was hearing submissions on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates prior approval to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases. "Ultimately, a balance has to be struck. Honest officers in the discharge of their duties must be protected from frivolous or vexatious complaints. Second, dishonest officers need not be protected," the bench said. The apex court observed one should not go with an approach that every officer was honest or every officer was dishonest. It said government officers took decisions or made recommendations in discharge of their official duty and one couldn't say every decision was "tainted". The bench said a sword of police investigation couldn't be left hanging on the officers if he took a decision or made a recommendation in discharge of their official functions. "What is wrong with this provision ? We want to know why are you attacking it," the bench asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation. Bhushan said the provision mandating prior sanction for even investigation or inquiry would effectively cripple the probe of corruption offences. He said safeguards were already there for protection of honest government officers. Bhushan referred to previous apex court verdicts which stressed on the need to make probe agencies independent. "It is the executive, which misuses. It is the political government which is usually corrupt," he said. The government could not only influence the decisions of public servants but could also influence the grant of sanction and whether some investigation should proceed and against whom, Bhushan added. "The political executive is there for the purpose of ensuring a particular policy being implemented. They would have made electoral promises. They want those promises to be implemented. They would have had certain schemes. They would have had certain programmes for implementation," the bench said. Bhushan, however, said, "We are today living in a situation in this country where unfortunately we are seeing gross miscarriage of justice across the board. We are seeing innocent people being arrested." He referred to cases probed by Enforcement Directorate against political leaders and claimed several such cases were dropped once the person being investigated joined the ruling party. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to Bhushan's statement and said the issue before the court was concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act. "We are not addressing seminar of any NGO," Mehta said. The bench then asked Bhushan to restrict his submissions to the cases of public servants. "In all major decisions which government officers take, someone or the other will be dissatisfied," Mehta said. He said all aspects concerning Section 17A of the Act were discussed in Parliament. Mehta further said corruption couldn't be tolerated and there was a zero tolerance for it. Parliament while enacting Section 17A felt the need to insulate public servants from false and frivolous allegations, Mehta added. "Fearless governance is also a equally important part of rule of law," he said. Bhushan said the prior approval virtually put a fetter on the entire investigation. The bench observed it might also be possible that the officer, against whom the complaint was made, was not at all involved in the process or had nothing to do with the decision taken or the recommendation made. "Every complaint can't be opening the floodgates. There must be filtering," the top court said while clarifying it wasn't shielding the corrupt. Bhushan said, "If this section is allowed to remain in the statute book, I can guarantee that in almost no case of high level corruption, the permission will ever be granted by the government." The hearing would continue on August 6. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
