An employer is statutorily obligated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to provide suitable alternative employment to an employee who suffers a disability, while ensuring continuity of service, pay protection, and the payment of backwages for periods where such accommodation was denied.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP(MD) No.5388 of 2026 R.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs

1.The State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai Chennai 600 002.

2.The Senior Deputy Manager (HRD)

The State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Pallavan Salai Chennai 600 002.

3.The Branch Manager, The State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Trichy Branch Trichy. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned orders of respondents 2 and 3 issued in letter No.339619/MaVa4/SETC/2024 dated 30.01.2026 and Memo No.51/A3/SETC/Tiru/25 dated 04.02.2026 quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to forthwith provide suitable alternative light duty to the petitioner depending upon his health condition, on permanent basis at Trichy Branch of 1^st respondent Corporation and provide him all other attendant benefits including continuity of service, pay protection and backwages as per Section 20(4) of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay backwages for the period when the petitioner was not given light duty, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents :Mr.K.Senthilkumar for R1 and R2 Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R3

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders of the respondents 2 and 3 in letter No.339619/MaVa4/SETC/2024 dated 30.01.2026 and Memo No.51/A3/SETC/Tiru/25 dated 04.02.2026 and to direct the respondents to forthwith provide suitable alternative light duty to the petitioner depending upon his health condition, on permanent basis at Trichy Branch of the 1^st respondent Corporation and provide him all other attendant benefits including continuity of service, pay protection and backwages as per Section 20(4) of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay backwages for the period when the petitioner was not given light duty, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

2. This Court, having taken note of the totality of the said facts and circumstances of the case, passed the following interim order on

11.03.2026:

“Mr.K.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the third respondent.

2. This is a case where an atrocity is sought to be inflicted upon the petitioner, who has suffered paralysis stroke and was certified as suffering from 75% locomotor disability, by requiring him to discharge the functions of a Conductor. 3. A perusal of the photograph filed by the petitioner, which is at Page No.40 of the typed set of papers, shows that both limbs are affected by paralysis stroke and he is able to walk only with the help of a stick.

4. Having taken note of the same, this Court expresses it's inclination to initiate prosecution against the officers responsible, who are involved in issuance of the impugned proceedings. However, before resorting to the same, this Court is inclined to afford an opportunity to the respondents to rectify themselves.

5. Hence, list the matter on 16.03.2026 immediately after admission cases. This Court expects the respondents to act immediately and rectify their mistake on or before

15.03.2026.”

3. Again on 16.03.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“In response to the order dated 11.03.2026, the learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court a copy of the proceedin