The Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents in not providing alternative employment to the petitioner including ail the reject proceedings, on the specious plea that color blindness is not a disability as per Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 by misconstruing the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 23.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 3529 of 2017 though clarified by the judgment dated 06.11.2017 in Writ Appeal No 1635/2017 of this Honble High Court which was upheld by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 01.08.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2025 by ignoring the binding Settlement dated 17.12.1979, is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the reject proceedings dated 04.03.2025 and consequently direct the Respondents to provide suitable alternative post of Shramik to the petitioner duly protecting the pay scale of the post of Driver with all consequential service benefits including payment of salary for the interregnum period, in the interest of justice and fair play and pass….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have not provided alternative employment to the petitioner and have rejected his claim on the ground that colour blindness is not a disability under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (arising out of SLP (C) No.36278 of2017) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that herein as follows:-

36. In light of this evolving doctrine, the Court in Mohamed Ibrahim clarified that employees with conditions like colour blindness, although not falling within the defined categories of the statute, must still be accommodated wherever their functional capacity permits. To do otherwise would result in a regressive interpretation of the law, undermining the very foundation of equal opportunity in public employment.

37. Thus, even though in the present case the Appellant had an enforceable right under a statutory industrial settlement-placing his claim on firmer footing-we find it necessary to reaffirm that even in the 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. 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.

38. This Court, therefore, affirms that beneficial and remedial legislation must not be diluted by narrow interpretation, and the protections offered therein must be extended purposively to protect the livelihood, dignity and service continuity of employees who acquire disabilities during employment. In doing so, we not only vindicate the Appellant's rights but also reaffirm our constitutional commitment to a just and humane employer-employee relationship

CONCLUSION:

39. To conclude, the record before us makes it clear that the Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Respondent-Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate em