Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from special leave petitions filed by two drivers who had been employed by the State of Punjab. While in service, they lost their eyesight and became blind, rendering them incapable of performing driving duties. They sought alternative appointment from the employer due to their disability. Instead of considering their request, the State of Punjab removed them from service. Aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by judgment dated July 18, 1995, which led to the present appeals by special leave. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether employees who become disabled during service, specifically drivers who become blind, are entitled to alternative employment instead of removal from service. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that they should not be removed and should be given alternative jobs commensurate with their abilities. The State of Punjab did not provide alternative appointment and instead removed them from service. The Supreme Court noted that the controversy was no longer res integra. It referred to its earlier decision in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan S.R.T.C., (1991) 1 SCC 731, where similar circumstances were considered and directions were issued for alternative appointment. The Court extracted the directions from paragraph 15 of that judgment, which included a scheme for alternative job or compensatory amount based on length of service. The Supreme Court applied those directions to the present case. The Court observed that the appellants became blind while in service and sought alternative appointment, but were removed. It held that such removal was impermissible and that the appellants were entitled to be considered for alternative appointment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the respondent, the State of Punjab, to consider the cases of the appellants for alternative appointment as and when vacancies arise. The Court did not impose any costs. Thus, the judgment reaffirmed the principle that disabled employees, especially those who become incapacitated during service, must be accommodated by suitable alternative employment rather than being terminated. The decision relied entirely on the precedent set in Anand Bihari case, highlighting the employer's obligation to provide alternative work or compensation in accordance with the scheme.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Disability Rights - Alternative Employment - Not mentioned - The appellants, employed as drivers, became blind during service and sought alternative appointment but were removed from service. The Supreme Court relied on Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan S.R.T.C. and directed the respondent to consider the appellants for alternative appointment as vacancies arise - Held that removal of blind drivers without considering alternative employment is impermissible (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether employees who become disabled during service as drivers are entitled to alternative appointment instead of removal from service
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The respondent was directed to consider the cases of the appellants for alternative appointment as and when vacancies arise. No costs.
Law Points
- Employees who become disabled during service are entitled to be considered for alternative appointment
- removal without such consideration is impermissible
- directions in Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan S.R.T.C. apply
