Referring to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) clarified that where an employee acquires a disability during his service, his services are not to be dispensed with; rather, efforts are to be made by the employer for shifting him to a suitable post and, in the absence thereof, to continue him on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available.
The Court found that despite the claim of the petitioner of his having suffered a brain stroke and medical prescriptions of the said fact have been annexed in the petition, no medical board has been constituted by the respondents to examine the petitioner.
From perusal of the report of the committee, the Court found that the said committee had been formed in pursuance of a letter sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Chief Medical Officer, for sending a senior physician for the evaluation of the petitioner. The committee formed an opinion that, as per the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, he has not been found fit for doing teaching work.
The Court, however, emphasized that even the respondents, based on the said report of the committee, are of the view that teaching work cannot be assigned to the petitioner, yet at the same time, considering the provisions of 20(4) of the RPWD Act 2016, an alternative post has to be identified for the petitioner. This is also as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 920].
The Court therefore directed the District Inspector of Schools to act in consonance with the provisions of the RPWD Act, 2016, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph, by identifying a suitable post for the petitioner with the same pay scale and service benefits. If it is not possible to adjust him to any post, he will be kept on a supernumerary post till a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed from the provisions of Section 20(4) of the 2016 Act that no government employer can dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired disability during his or her service. The proviso to Section 20(4) provides that if an employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he is holding, he shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and benefits.
Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 920], where it was held that “when a disability is acquired in the course of service, the legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment. The duty of a public employer is not merely to discharge functionaries, but to preserve human potential where it continues to exist. The law does not permit the severance of service by the stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting the possibility of meaningful redeployment. Such obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation”.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a government school in 2013, suffered a brain stroke in 2016 that rendered him unable to speak or write. After years of medical treatment, he partly recovered and submitted a joining application in August 2024, which was refused by the educational authorities, based on a medical committee report establishing him unfit for teaching duties.
The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court seeking directions to sanction medical leave with pay, and to reinstate him in a suitable non-teaching post in terms of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Case Relied On:
Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 920]
Appearances:
Advocate Satyanshu Ojha, for the Appellant
Advocate Raj Kumar Singh Suryvanshi, for the Respondent
