Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13147
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
PRASAD P M – Appellant
Versus
THE L I C OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 6726/2018
Employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations and should not face discrimination in employment based on their disability under applicable laws.
Headnote:
Disability - Employment Rights - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Section 20; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Section 47 - The court highlighted the obligations of employers to provide non-discriminatory employment conditions for disabled individuals as per the statutory provisions and emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation for the petitioner's physical disability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a physically disabled Record Clerk, challenged his transfer order following promotion, claiming it would negatively impact his ability to work due to his severe mobility issues. He argued for retention in his current position, citing statutory protections for employees with disabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioner's physical condition and found that the respondents had failed to consider his statutory rights under disability laws, which protect against discrimination in employment and mandate reasonable accommodations.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to be retained in his current position despite promotion, in light of his significant physical disability and the statutory provisions protecting employees with disabilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities is not merely statutory, but an obligation that upholds their right to work with dignity and without discrimination.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to continue as Record Clerk with benefits of Assistant until a vacancy arises.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a physically disabled person working as Record Clerk in the LIC office at Vadakara. He filed this writ petition aggrieved by his posting at Neleshwar, as per Ext.P6 order dated 01.02.2018 on his promotion as Assistant.
2. Petitioner is having 60% disability, his disabilities are explained in paragraph 4 of the writ petition as follows:
“This 43 year old male patient presented with history of difficulty in walking of 28 years duration, which increased for past 6 years. Complaint started after he had an accident while playing and became hemiplegic following, which he was admitted to Medical College Hospital Calicut. He was on traction for one month followed by Minerva Jacket for 6 months with which his weakness improved by difficulty in walking persisted which progressively increased over 8 years and became more severe over past 6 years. Now history of swaying two sides while walking and slipping of chappal and difficulty in getting up from sitting position. History of minimal weakness of left upper limb. History of urinary hesitancy.
3. It is stated that he is unable to walk by himself without the help of another person and even for attending to his primary personal requirements, he needs the help of others. He is almost immobile; the facilities in the office at Vatakara branch is conducive to his physical condition. According to the petitioner, a transfer to another place either on promotion or otherwise, will result in very serious prejudice to him as it will not be accessible to him; he will not be able to work or even move around; the assistance which he avails as at present will not be available in any other office, not only because of the distance to the other offices, but also on account of the non-availability of the helping hands on whom he depend now.
4. Petitioner entered service in LIC as a Sub Staff in 1990; got promotion as Record Clerk in the year 1996; he worked at Nileshwar, Mattannur and Thalassery; he was transferred to Vatakara Branch in the year 1999 based on his request and has been continuing there. In the year 2010, he had to undergo a spinal surgery after which he became totally immobile. However, he appeared for the departmental examination and got qualified for promotion as Assistant. As per Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2013, he was offered a posting as Assistant at Payyannur. In view of his physical disability to move, he had to decline the offer and requested for retention at Vatakara. In the year 2016-17 also, he appeared for the departmental examination and got himself qualified. Thereafter when vacancies were notified in 2017, he submitted application dated 17.01.2017 opting for posting at Vatakara, Thalassery and Koylandy in the order of preference for posting. As per Ext.P5 order, he was posted as Assistant at Taliparamba, on 24.03.2017. As he was unable to move to another station, he requested to retain him at Vatakara itself. Petitioner could not accept that also for the very same reason. He was thereupon moved to the contingency list. Ext.P6 order was passed thereafter on 01.02.2018 posting him at Nileswar from the contingency list. Petitioner again submitted a representation Ext.P7 explaining the practical difficulties, he is facing to move even a single step he would be facing on his posting away from the present station, on account of his disabilities. Petitioner has filed this writ petition at this stage and an interim order was passed staying the operation of Ext.P6.
5. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner was posted at Vatakara on transfer at his request and has been continuing there since February 1999. He appeared in the test for promotion in 2012-13, but he declined promotion pointing out his disability to join the posts away from Vatakara; he again applied for the test notified in December 2016. Petitioner had applied for posting at vatakara, Thalasserry and Koyilandi. Vacancies were not notified in those stations. Petitioner was
