Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
ANIL KUMAR R. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41228 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.MANU SRINATH, SHRI.NIMESH THOMAS, SHRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY
For the Respondents: SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SMT. SHYLAJA S.L.
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provisions for pay protection in light of disability claims are affirmed.
Headnote:In the case regarding disability accommodation, per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner sought job adjustment and pay protection. The court identified that the KSRTC complied by allowing a role change to a lighter post and recognized the pay protection mandated under Section 20(4) of the Act. The court directed KSRTC to ensure timely disbursement of any owed arrears within a six-month timeframe.
Result: The KSRTC must comply with the adjusted job and salary protection effectively.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rights of persons with disabilities (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. job adjustment approval and pay protection established. (Para 4 , 5) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is stated to have been suffering from Pre-Diabetic Retinopathy as certified by Exts.P1, P2 and P22, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be posted in a light job in a category equivalent to that of Conductor Grade I and to have his pay scale refixed and protected.
ii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to be granted the pay scale of Conductor Grade I which is Grade VIII and for the change of category to that of light job equivalent to that of Conductor Grade I;
iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P19 and quash the same;
iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, commanding the 6th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P20 representation within such time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court;
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to disperse all arrears of salary from November, 2019 to September, 2022 and also to allow all service benefits including grade promotions to the petitioner;
vi) The petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language; and vii) Issue such other writ, direction or order as deemed fit;
viii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, directions, or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P17 and Exhibit P21 and quash the same;”
2. Heard Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).
3. Taking note of the contention raised by the petitioner with reference to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'RPwD Act of 2016), this Court, on 23.08.2025, had directed the 2nd respondent to take note of the representation filed by the petitioner seeking to obtain a “ light job in a category equivalent to that of Conductor Grade – I”.
4. Pursuant to the above direction, the KSRTC through its Managing Director, has issued the order at Ext.P24 dated 05.12.2025, permitting the petitioner to change the category of his work to a comparatively light post of “peon” and further to be retained at Vaikom.
5. In the light of the afore, Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly points out that his request for a light job has been accepted by the KSRTC and the petitioner is satisfied with the same. However, he would point out that the petitioner also is entitled to protection of his “pay scale” , which has not been properly dealt with while issuing Ext.P24. While, issuing the order at Ext.P24, the protection for “Pay” alone has been extended with reference to the relevant provisions of Kerala Service Rules Part I. At the same time, insofar as the claim of the petitioner is with reference to his disability, in my opinion, a different treatment is visualised under the provisions of RPwD Act 2016, under the provisions of Section 20 (4) as per which “Pay scales” would also stand protected. Therefore, the order at Ext.P24 would also stand modified. The petitioner's “pay scale” should also be protected with reference to the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the RPwD Act, 2016. Needless to say, on the basis of Ext.P24 as well as the declaration granted by this Court as above, if any arrears of pay, etc., are required to be disbursed to petitioner, the KSRTC will disburse the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Sd/-
