“The appellant department, which was under a legal obligation to provide an alternative employment by considering the health condition, particularly the disability acquired, had failed to discharge their duties as mandated under the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 47(1) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and Section 20(4) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and had not provided alternate duty,” the bench observed.

It further noted, “The provisions of both Acts safeguard employees who acquire any disability during their service from being dispensed with or reduced in rank by any employer. The provision mandates the employer to shift the employee who had acquired a disability to some other post, and in doing so, the pay scale and service benefits of the concerned employee are also protected.”

The court added that even if no suitable post was available, the employer needed to create a supernumerary post until a suitable one was found or until the employee reached superannuation.

The bench directed the authorities to appoint Sakthivel as an office assistant, helper, or in any other alternative role with the same pay and benefits within four weeks.

It also ordered the department to pay him 50 per cent back wages from 18 November 2013 to 29 March 2023, the date when the writ petitions were disposed of, and full wages from 29 March 2023 onwards, with continuity of service and all other benefits.

Adblock test (Why?)