Case Note & Summary
Background: The case concerned a service law dispute where an employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board became disabled due to cancer, leading to amputation of his right arm. The employee, who held the post of Sub-Station Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, was absorbed as a Carrier Attendant with a lower pay scale. He challenged this action, asserting violation of his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts: The appellant was employed as a Sub-Station Attendant. On February 13, 1984, he underwent surgery for Chondrosarcoma, a form of cancer, and was treated at Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay until March 18, 1985. His right arm was completely amputated as a result. A doctor's letter dated May 3, 1985 stated that he could assume normal duties with his left arm. Despite this, the respondents absorbed him as a Carrier Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1300, significantly lower than his previous scale. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was dismissed in limine on October 10, 1990. He then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Legal Issues: The core issues were whether the appellant could be directed to be absorbed in a technical post equivalent to Sub-Station Attendant, whether the Court could direct his appointment as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) given his educational qualifications, and whether he was entitled to appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with relaxation of typing test and protection of pay under Article 21. Arguments: The appellant, through counsel, contended that he had been performing duties at 33 KV and had no prior practice on 66 KV; his advocate was not permitted during the medical examination. He argued for appointment as UDC, which carried an equal pay scale. The respondents relied on the Medical Board's report, which found that the appellant could not perform the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or equivalent technical posts due to his disability. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court directed constitution of a Medical Board with engineers to assess the appellant's capability. The Board reported that the appellant failed to align trolley, operate isolator, and handle equipment safely; hence he could not perform technical duties. The Court rejected the appellant's allegations against the Board as unwarranted. It also found that the appellant, being only a matriculate, did not meet the educational qualifications for direct recruitment to UDC (which required graduation or higher), so no direction could be given for UDC. However, the Court held that Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with disease and unable to perform the duties of the original post, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a suitable post. The Court found that asking the appellant to work as a Carrier Attendant was unjust. Since he was a matriculate, he was eligible for LDC, which required matriculation and passing a typing test. The Court directed relaxation of the typing test because typing was not generally a must for a Clerk, and ordered appointment as LDC with protection of his last drawn pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and payment of all arrears of salary. Decision: The appeal was allowed; the respondent Board was directed to appoint the appellant as LDC, relaxing the typing test, protecting his pay scale, and paying arrears. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Medical Board Assessment - Court Accepted Board's Finding That Appellant Could Not Perform Technical Duties - No specific statute - The Medical Board, assisted by Engineers, assessed the appellant at a 66 KV Sub-Station and found he could not align trolley, operate isolator, or handle equipment safely. The Board also considered alternative technical posts and found duties similar. The Court rejected appellant's allegations against the Board as unwarranted and held it could not direct absorption in technical posts. (Paras 3-4) B) Service Law - Appointment to Upper Division Clerk - Educational Qualification Requirement - No specific statute - For UDC appointment, there are promotion and direct recruitment channels (75% and 25%), and direct recruitment requires graduation/post-graduation/law graduation. Since the appellant was only matriculate, the Court could not direct appointment as UDC. Held that the appellant was not eligible for UDC. (Para 5) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with disease and unable to perform duties of the post held, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a suitable post. The Court held that asking the appellant to work as Carrier Attendant was unjust; since he was a matriculate eligible for LDC, it directed the respondent Board to relax the typing test and appoint him as LDC with protection of pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and payment of arrears. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, whose right arm was amputated due to cancer, was entitled to be adjusted in a suitable post with protection of pay under Article 21 of the Constitution; whether the employer's action of appointing him as Carrier Attendant with lower pay was unjust; and whether the court could direct appointment as U.D.C. or L.D.C. with relaxation of typing test.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; respondent Board directed to appoint appellant as LDC relaxing typing test, protecting pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, and pay all arrears of salary; no costs.
Law Points
- Article 21 protects right to livelihood as integral facet of right to life
- Employer must make every endeavour to adjust employee in suitable post when employee incapacitated due to disease
- Court can direct relaxation of typing test for LDC appointment when matriculate employee otherwise eligible
- UDC appointment cannot be directed without required educational qualification
- Medical Board report accepted as impartial and conclusive
