2025 Supreme(SC) 1140

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Ch. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Other – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 9986 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(S). 36278 of 2017)
Decided on : 01-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disability acquired during service – There is distinction between persons suffering from disability and persons who have acquired disability during service – When a disability is acquired in course of service, legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment.
(2) Memorandum of Settlement – It is not a mere administrative circular – It is a binding statutory contract forged between labour and management.

Headnote:

(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 21 – Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 – Premature retirement from post of Driver – Colour blindness – Claim for alternate employment – Appellant’s retirement from service on the ground of colour blindness was effected without any demonstrable effort by Respondent–Corporation to identify or assess feasibility of alternative employment, despite Appellant having expressed willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post – Such inaction violates both statutory obligation and administrative fairness – Appellant’s entitlement to redeployment arises from Memorandum of Settlement executed under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which specifically provides for alternate employment to drivers declared colour blind, with pay protection and continuity of service – Colour blindness, though a disqualification for driving, does not render 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 – No effort was made by Corporation to assess his suitability or to examine availability of such posts – No comparative evaluation was conducted, and no individualized inquiry was held – Burden lies on Corporation, not employee, to establish that no suitable alternate post was available or could reasonably be created – Mere invocation of a medical certificate, or silence of a circular, cannot constitute compliance – Inaction is not neutrality; in such cases, it is a form of institutional exclusion – Non-consideration of Appellant’s claim in proper perspective renders retirement order void. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 13, 24, 25, 26 and 27)

(B) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47 – Disability acquired during service – There is distinction between persons suffering from disability and persons who have acquired disability during service – When a disability is acquired in course of service, legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment – Duty of a public employer is not merely to discharge functionaries, but to preserve human potential where it continues to exist – Law does not permit severance of service by stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting possibility of meaningful redeployment – Such obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation – Even in absence of such contractual rights, employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment – Obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in principles of non-discrimination, dignity, and equal treatment – Beneficial and remedial legislation must not be diluted by narrow interpretation, and protections offered therein must be extended purposively to protect livelihood, dignity and service continuity of employees who acquire disabilities during employment – 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, Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by Constitution itself – Employer’s discretion ends where employee’s dignity begins. (Paras 31, 35, 38 and 41)

(C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 12(3) and 18(3) – Memorandum of Settlement – It is not a mere administrative circular – It is a binding statutory contract forged between labour and management – By virtue of Section 18(3) of Act, such a settlement binds not only parties to dispute but also all workmen of establishment and their successors – In industrial law, a beneficial provision in a prior settlement cannot be deemed overridden unless there is express revocation or contradiction – No such conflict exists in present case – Settlements entered under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act are not administrative conveniences – They are quasi-statutory instruments reflecting negotiated justice, and they bind both employer and employee with force of law – Where such settlements create specific entitlements, courts must give them purposive effect, unless expressly rescinded or demonstrably superseded – Their terms are not to be overridden by internal policy or circulars issued in contravention thereof. (Paras 18, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Writ appeal filed by Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Respondent No. 1, came to be allowed and judgment of Single Judge dated 10.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 5164 of 2016 directing Respondent No.1 to provide appellant an alternate employment came to be set-aside and permitted appellant to make a detailed representation to respondent-corporation to seek alternate employment.

Findings of Court:

Respondent–Corporation is directed to appoint the Appellant to a suitable post, consistent with his condition, and on the same pay grade as he held on 06.01.2016, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Appellant shall be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary, allowances, and benefits from the date of his termination to the date 24 of reinstatement. The intervening period shall be reckoned as continuous service for all purposes.

Result : Appeal allowed.