Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 1) reiterated that an employee who acquires a disability during service must be protected by an employer by providing suitable alternate employment, unless no such post exists in their organization.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar granted relief to a bus driver employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who was prematurely terminated from service after acquiring colour blindness, without any attempt by the employer to identify or offer him an alternative employment.

The Court set aside the High Court's decision, which justified the APRTC's action to terminate the Appellant from employment without making any sincere attempt to identify or offer him an alternative post, despite its obligation to do so.

“employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment. 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 court observed.

“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 added.

The Appellant, bus driver while employed with APSRTC had developed colour blindness, for which he was declared medically unfit for work, and was prematurely terminated from work without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment in the department despite the APSRTC's obligation to do so under 1979 Memorandum of Settlement (“MoS”), which mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers.

The Respondent-APSRTC contended that the Appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of an alternate employment because the 1979 MoS was effectively overridden by the 1986 MoS which does not mandate the employer to provide alternate employment to employee acquiring colour disability during service.

Rejecting the Respondent's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar referencing Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Another (2003) observed:

“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. There is no evidence that he was declared wholly incapacitated or incapable of performing other duties. This Court in Kunal Singh (supra), held that when an employee acquires a disability in the course of service, the employer must retain the employee by providing suitable alternate employment, unless no such post exists. In the present case, the Appellant had requested reassignment to the post of Shramik, which, by its nature, does not demand normal colour vision. No effort was made by the Corporation to assess his suitability or to examine the availability of such posts.”, the court observed.

With respect to the applicability of the 1986 MoS over 1979 MoS, the Court stated that the latter MoS would prevail, as the former was general provision, having no overriding effect over the 1979 MoS which specifically deals with colour blindness.

“Additionally, 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. 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. Accordingly, we find that 1986 settlement does not explicitly abrogate or nullify Clause 14 of the 1979 settlement.”, the court said.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the Respondent-APSRTC was directed to provide the suitable employment option to the suitable post, consistent with his condition, and on the same pay grade he was holding, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Cause Title: CH. JOSEPH VERSUS THE TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Santhana Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyam Reddy Sarasani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sri Ruma Sarasani, Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR