The employer must not terminate an employee who acquires a disability during service but explore reasonable accommodations to facilitate continued employment, according to Section 20(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Saharsh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri R K Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

3. Despite notice being issued to respondents no. 6 and 7, none responds on their behalf. As per office report dated 24.10.2024, the notice is deemed sufficient.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after he had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 2013 he suffered a brain stroke on 2.8.2016 which rendered him unable to carry out his duties. After attaining some semblance of fitness, the petitioner claims to have submitted his joining on 20.8.2024 but he has not been permitted to join.

5. In the meanwhile the respondents formed a committee to examine the case of the petitioner which has submitted its report dated 9.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure SCA-8 to the short counter affidavit, per which it has been indicated that as the petitioner is unable to carry out teaching work on account of not being able to write or to speak, as such teaching work cannot be taken from him and he cannot be permitted to join.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that medical leave is still outstanding and the respondents may be directed to sanction medical leave and further certain benefits flow out of the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 per which the respondents may consider the petitioner for being appointed on an equivalent post.

7. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & other, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763 to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the applicability of the Act, 1995 and has laid down the principles to be followed where an employee has acquired disability during his employment.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although in the said judgement, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Section 47 of the Act, 1995 yet now the said section is pari materia to section 20(4) of the Act, 2016 and thus it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for alternative employment and also to pay arrears of salary with effect from 1.10.2021 after sanctioning the same as medical leave with pay.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit have argued that the petitioner remained absent from the institution since 1.10.2021 and after a period of 3 years made representation on 30.8.2024 for the purpose of being permitted to join which has not found favour with the respondents on account of he having absented himself.

10. Moreover, as per the report of the committee dated 9.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the short counter affidavit, the petitioner, on account of his medical condition has not been found fit for any teaching work and consequently he cannot be permitted to join on account of being unable to speak, read and write.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that admittedly the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2013