Employer must accommodate employees who acquire disabilities during service: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on August 1 (Friday), emphatically ruled that an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service cannot be terminated without being given a fair chance of reassignment.

The court underscored the constitutional duty of employers to reasonably accommodate such employees by offering suitable alternative roles.

As reported by LiveLaw, a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar delivered the verdict while granting relief to a bus driver, Ch Joseph, formerly employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who was terminated from service after being declared medically unfit due to colour blindness.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision which upheld the APSRTC’s action, the Supreme Court observed that the employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment.

The court said that 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.

The Appellant had requested a reassignment to the post of Shramik, a non-driving position not requiring normal colour vision, but APSRTC made no effort to evaluate this request, despite the APSRTC's obligation to do so under 1979 Memorandum of Settlement (“MoS”), which mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers.

The SC said 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.

“The employer's discretion ends where the employee's dignity begins,” the court said.

The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, directed the APSRTC to provide the Appellant with suitable employment in accordance with his condition, maintaining his pay grade. The Corporation was ordered to comply within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

APSRTC argued that it was no longer bound by the 1979 Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), which required alternate employment for drivers who developed colour blindness, citing a subsequent 1986 MoS that lacked such a mandate.

The court, however, rejected this contention, ruling that the 1979 MoS would prevail, as 1986 MoS was general provision, having no overriding effect over the 1979 MoS which specifically deals with colour blindness.

“The primary legal flaw in this approach lies in the assumption that medical unfitness for a particular post automatically entails incapacity for public service altogether. Colour blindness, though a disqualification for driving, does not render the Appellant unfit to serve in any other non-driving role,”the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar said.

The court relied on the precedent set in Kunal Singh v Union of India & Anr (2003), reiterating that unless no alternative post exists, the employer is obligated to provide reassignment.

On the conflict between the 1979 and 1986 settlements, the court clarified that the 1986 clause is general in nature, addressing medically unfit drivers as a class.

The 1979 clause is specific, dealing solely with colour blindness. Applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant [a general provision does not override a specific provision], the 1979 clause continues to govern the case of colour-blind drivers.”

Further, the judgment noted that the absence of a termination clause in the 1986 settlement, coupled with the Corporation's continued adherence to Clause 14 in other cases even after 1986, confirms that the earlier agreement remained operational.