Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4246

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Baleshwari – Appellant
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Science – Respondent
O.A. No. 2050/2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sriparna Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Kaushal Gautam, Kashika Singh

An establishment is prohibited from terminating or reducing the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service; instead, it is legally mandated to accommodate the employee in a suitable alternative position or a supernumerary post with the same service and pay benefits.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 47 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 20 - Employee acquiring disability during service - Protection against termination - Employer’s obligation to provide alternative employment - Termination of service on ground of disability acquired during employment held contrary to law. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
Original applicant, employed as a Mali, acquired a medical disability (75% permanent impairment) during his service. Despite being advised light duty by medical professionals, the respondents terminated his services based on a later medical board report declaring him unfit for the post of Mali. The applicant passed away during the pendency of the original application, and his legal heirs were substituted to pursue back wages and retiral benefits.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the employer is legally obligated under Section 47 of the 1995 Act (and equivalent provisions in the 2016 Act) to accommodate an employee who acquires a disability during service, rather than terminating them. The termination was set aside, and respondents were directed to pay arrears and retiral benefits to the legal heirs.

Issues: Whether the termination of an employee who acquired a disability during service is legally sustainable, and whether the tribunal can grant relief to legal heirs after the death of the original applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an employee acquires a disability during service, no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank the employee on that ground; the establishment is mandated to shift the employee to an alternative post or supernumerary post, if necessary.

Result: Claim allowed; termination order set aside, and directions issued for payment of salary arrears and retiral benefits to legal heirs.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“(i) Pass an order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 5.09.2014 and notice of termination dated 9.07.2014 and consequently reinstate the Applicant in service

(ii) Pass an order giving an alternative employment in the same pay scale to the Applicant under the protection envisioned under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

(iii) Pass an order directing the respondents to consider the Applicant for an alternative pcst having lighter duty n view of the certificate dated 9.09.2013

(iv) pass any other order or orders may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing the counter reply. During the pendency of the OA, unfortunately the original applicant expired on 01.08.2016 and the legal heirs of the original applicant have got themselves substituted. Thus, the present OA is being prosecuted through the legal heirs of the original applicant.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance also perused the pleadings available on record.

The undisputed facts are that the applicant joined the services of the respondents as Mali on daily wages basis and was granted temporary status by the respondents w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (Annexure A-2)

Vide order dated 05.09.2003 (Annexure A-3), the applicant was transferred from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to National Drug Dependence Treatment (NDDT) Centre Ghaziabad. During the applicant‟s such employment, the applicant met with an accident on 08.04.2008 for which he underwent treatment in AIIMS. As the applicant was finding it difficult to perform his duties at NDDT Centre Ghaziabad, at his request, the applicant was transferred back to AIIMS on 04.11.2008.

The respondents, vide order dated 03.01.2009, in pursuance to the decision of the Standing Finance Committee in its meeting held on 07.05.2008 and ratified by the Governing body in its meeting held on 13.08.2008, ordered for regularization of various persons including the original applicant for the post of Mali in the pay scale of 2610-4000 (pre revise plus usual allowances) (Annexure A-9), with various conditions, including subject to production of certificate of fitness of Medical Superintendent of the institute before joining the post. The original applicant submitted his medical certificate dated 02.02.2009 duly issued by the Head of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS and counter signed by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS (Annexure A-10(Colly)).

The applicant has also annexed the prescription dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure A-16) wherein attending Doctor has recommended the applicant to be accommodated for light duty. The applicant has been discharging his duties as assigned to him and drawing salary as apparent from various salary slips in the basic pay of Rs. 8,310/- (Annexure A-12). However, the respondents issued the impugned notice of termination dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure A-26). The applicant preferred a reply dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure A-27) to the said notice. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order of termination dated 05.09.2014. Thus, the present OA.

Ms. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the applicants, has extensively argued that the applicant was admittedly engaged by the competent authority, temporary status was granted to him by the competent authority and the competent authority amongst the respondents had passed the order dated 03.01.2009 for regularization of the applicant, alongwith various others, with conditions as stipulated therein which included production of a medical certificate. The applicant had submitted the required medical certificate and had not only been attending his duties, as assigned to him by his se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4246

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)Baleshwari – AppellantVersusAll India Institute of Medical Science – RespondentO.A. No. 2050/2015

An establishment is prohibited from terminating or reducing the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service; instead, it is legally mandated to accommodate the employee in a suitable alternative position or a supernumerary post with the same service and pay benefits.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Baleshwari – Appellant
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Science – Respondent
O.A. No. 2050/2015