IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited And Another - Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar - Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO.616 OF 2023.
Decided On : 19-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of employee's injury and retirement (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of retirement under regulations (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal obligations under section 47 of the act (Para 5 , 10 , 16) |
| 4. interpretation and application of section 47 (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 5. employer's failure to retain disabled employees violates legal obligations. (Para 11) |
| 6. court’s decision reaffirming employee's rights (Para 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. the appeal's dismissal reaffirms the legality of the lower court's ruling. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Donadi Ramesh, J.
The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order in Writ - A No. 58074 of 2014 dated 10.02.2020.
2. The respondent in the appeal has filed the writ petition assailing the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the appellant herein. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service alongwith all consequential benefits.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a line man with the appellant/Corporation and he was posted at Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Phool Bagh, KESCO, Kanpur. On 27.06.2009, while the petitioner was working on high tension over head line after taking proper shut down, due to negligence on the part of the concerned Officer of the appellant/Corporation, the high tension line on which petitioner was working was suddenly energized resultantly he got electricity shock and his both arms burned. As a result thereof, his both arms were amputated by the doctors while undergoing treatment. In view of the said action, he got hundred percent permanent disability as declared by the Medical Board in its report dated 16.12.2009. On the basis of above said report, the appellant/Corporation has passed the impugned order on 06.04.2011, whereby, petitioner was compulsory retired with effect from 30.04.2011. The petitioner being hundred percent handicapped is unable to sign or put his thumb impression, has made oral request for cancellation of the above said order and requesting the appellant/Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in the service. However, the respondent/appellant have not paid any heed on the request of the petitioner, thereafter, he has made a representation by taking help of Shri Deepak Sikroria, Authorized Representative on 18.01.2013 and again on 18.06.2013. The Executive Engineer (Mu) and Public Information Officer of respondent/appellant by letter dated 29.09.2014 only supplied copy of the letter of Executive Enginer (VI)-I dated 28.02.2011 which records that the representation dated 18.01.2013 was not decided. In fact as per the date of birth of the petitioner, he has to retire on 31.05.2022 but taking hundred percent disability in view of the accident, respondents have passed the impugned order on 30.04.2011 giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner. The said action is contrary to section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995.
4. Refuting the above said averments, one Arjun Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, Kanpur Nagar, has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner while working as the Lineman whose both hands were amputated as a result of electric accident on 27.06.2009. Accordingly, the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar has given certificate on 16.12.2009 declaring that the petitioner is hundred percent disabled. Bases on the above said certificate, the respondent/Corporation has passed the order on 06.04.2011 by giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2011, which reads as follows:
^^dk;kZy;&Kki
Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act mandates accommodation for employees acquiring disabilities, preventing termination during service.
Employers cannot terminate employees who acquire disabilities during service; they must continue to provide wages and benefits under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
Disability Act s.20(4) prohibits premature retirement of employee acquiring disability during service; mandates alternative/supernumerary post till superannuation, prevailing over service rules.
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Shifting disabled employee to new post under Section 47 does not require counting prior service for new cadre seniority; existing employees' seniority protected; promotion denial valid if lacking min....
Termination of services due to continued ill-health under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act is valid, but equitable considerations necessitate compensation for workmen suffering job-rel....
The termination of an employee based on medical unfitness is contrary to the protections established under disability laws, requiring adjustments or supernumerary positions for disabled employees.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.