Landmark Judgment: Allahabad High Court Protects Disabled Employees
In a landmark judgment reaffirming the dignity and security of differently-abled employees, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that public servants who acquire a disability during service cannot be dismissed solely on medical grounds. Justice Abdul Moin, delivering the judgment in Laljee v. State of U.P., held that such employees must be offered suitable alternative employment under Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
This decision fortifies the legal and moral foundation that disability acquired during service is not a ground for termination but a call for reasonable accommodation, compassion, and constitutional compliance.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Laljee, had served as an Assistant Teacher since 2013. In August 2016, he suffered a brain stroke, leaving him unable to write or speak. Despite attempts to rejoin service in August 2024, the education authorities refused reinstatement. A medical committee report dated October 9, 2024, found him unfit for teaching duties and recommended against his return.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that both the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the RPwD Act, 2016 protect employees who become disabled during service, mandating their redeployment rather than termination. The respondents, however, claimed that the petitioner had remained absent since 2021 and that his late reinstatement request was untenable after three years.
Court’s Observation
Justice Moin referred to Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, which unequivocally provides:
“No government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service; if the employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.”
If no such post exists, the employer must create a supernumerary post until a suitable role is available.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2022) 6 SCC 749, which underscored that the law mandates modification of duties, not dismissal of employees who become disabled.
Justice Moin observed:
“When a disability is acquired in the course of service, the legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment… The law does not permit the severance of service by the stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting the possibility of meaningful redeployment.”
This pronouncement echoes the constitutional ethos of inclusivity embedded in Articles 14, 16, and 21.
Supreme Court Precedents Supporting the Judgment
The High Court’s reasoning resonates with several Supreme Court decisions that have shaped India’s disability rights jurisprudence:
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 524 | Employees acquiring disability cannot be terminated; must be redeployed or retained on a supernumerary post. |
| Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 546 | Employers must provide reasonable accommodation and identify suitable posts. |
| State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 6 SCC 593 | Benefits for disabled persons are statutory rights, not concessions. |
| Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2022) 6 SCC 749 | Employers must proactively modify duties or assign new roles. |
International Perspective
Globally, the right to work for persons with disabilities is protected by Article 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified in 2007. The Convention obliges states to prohibit discrimination and promote equal opportunities through reasonable accommodation and inclusive employment policies.
- Archibald v. Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32 (UK House of Lords): Employers must consider transfer without competitive selection to preserve employment.
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002): Reasonable accommodation is mandatory unless it causes undue hardship.
- Hollingsworth v. Commissioner of Police (2003, Australia): Employers must modify work conditions unless unjustifiable burden results.
These international precedents underline a shared global doctrine: retaining disabled employees through adjustment, not exclusion, is both a legal and ethical imperative.
Court’s Directions
The Allahabad High Court directed the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, to identify a suitable alternative post for the petitioner within the education department. If no such post exists, he must be placed on a supernumerary post as mandated under Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act.
The Court also ordered regularization of the intervening period between his absence and reinstatement to ensure service continuity and prevent penalization due to medical incapacity.
Significance of the Judgment
This verdict extends beyond the individual—it reaffirms the constitutional morality underpinning India’s disability law. It signals that employment rights of differently-abled persons must be interpreted through the lenses of human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination.
By reinforcing the doctrine of reasonable accommodation, the judgment transforms the idea of disability from a medical limitation to a social responsibility. Public employers are reminded that inclusivity is not optional—it is a constitutional command.
Key Takeaway
The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Laljee v. State of U.P. harmonizes statutory law, constitutional ideals, and human empathy. It sends a clear message across public administration: employees who acquire disabilities are to be retained with dignity, not removed with regret.
By aligning with both Supreme Court precedents and international disability rights standards, this judgment reinforces India’s commitment to an inclusive, rights-based society—where every human ability, in whatever form it persists, finds a place to belong.
