SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
T.Rajendran – Respondent
W.A.(MD) No.549 of 2026|C.M.P.(MD)No.5131 of 2026



Advocates:
For Appellants: Mr.SC.Herold Singh
For Respondent: Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

Service-acquired disability entitles employee to medical leave salary and alternative employment without pay reduction under 1995 Disabilities Act S.24.

Headnote:The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, particularly Section 24, mandates provision of alternative employment without reduction in pay for employees acquiring disability during service. The employee, originally a driver cum conductor, suffered disability, obtained medical leave, but salary was denied treating it as unauthorized absence. The Single Judge directed payment of last drawn salary from the date of disability and alternative employment. The Division Bench upheld this, finding no infirmity as disability was service-acquired and medical leave recognized. The key issue was whether salary could be denied for medical leave due to service-related disability despite offering alternative employment. The court's ratio is that recognition of disability and medical leave entitles the employee to salary protection and alternative employment under Section 24 without pay reduction, rejecting the employer's unauthorized absence claim. The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order to pay last drawn salary from 12.06.2023 after adjustments, within two months.

Table of Content
1. challenge to single judge order on salary and alternative job. (Para 2)
2. appellants' submission on alternative employment offered. (Para 3)
3. single judge applied mandatory disability provisions. (Para 5)
4. medical leave salary cannot be denied post-disability recognition. (Para 6)
5. appeal dismissed; salary payment ordered. (Para 7 , 8)

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2025, in and by which this Court directed the authorities to provide the writ petitioner an alternative job and pay his last drawn salary to the petitioner from 12.06.2023, this writ appeal has been filed.

2.The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Driver cum conductor.

During his service he suffered disability and obtained medical leave. For such period, the salary to the writ petitioner was rejected treating the said period as unauthorized absent. However, the learned Single Judged directed the appellants to pay salary to the writ petitioner for such period.

3.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that considering the disability acquired by the respondent/writ petitioner, an alternative employment as Conductor has been granted to the respondent. However, the respondent having failed to join in the said post and taken unauthorized leave, has approached this Court seeking salary for the said period. 4.We have perused the entire materials placed on record.

5.The learned Single Judge considering the mandatory provisions under the provisions of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 directed the appellant to pay the last drawn salary from 12.06.2023. The fact that the respondent acquired disability during his service is not disputed. The grievance of the respondent is that though the leave was treated as medical leave, he was not paid salary for the said period.

6.In our considered view, once the appellants have recognized the disability of the respondent and granted medical leave, they cannot deny salary for such period by treating it as unauthorized absence. Admittedly, the respondent acquired disability during service. In such circumstances, he is entitled to be provided with alternative employment without reduction in pay, as contemplated under Section 24 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference.

7.The appellants are directed to pay the last drawn salary to the respondent from the date of disability ie., 12.06.2023, after adjusting the salary already paid, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top