Case Note & Summary
The matter involved fourteen writ petitions filed by drivers employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The petitioners were appointed as drivers and had unblemished service records. In December 2017, MSRTC directed a routine medical check-up at Bapaye Hospital, which reported that the petitioners suffered from colour vision defect. Subsequently, J.J. Hospital confirmed the diagnosis and declared them unfit to perform duties as drivers. Consequent to these reports, MSRTC terminated the petitioners’ services in 2018. The petitioners, who had no other source of income and whose families depended on them, repeatedly requested alternative employment within MSRTC. However, these requests were rejected based on a Circular dated 29 July 2016 issued by MSRTC, which stated that a driver declared unfit due to colour blindness was not entitled to alternative service or job. The petitioners then filed the writ petitions challenging the 2016 Circular as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During the pendency of the petitions, MSRTC constituted a committee to formulate guidelines for compliance with Section 47 of the 1995 Act. The committee submitted its report on 19 December 2019, and MSRTC issued a new Circular on 23 January 2020 superseding the earlier one. The new Circular categorized disabilities, prescribed procedures, and provided for alternative employment in positions such as labourer, peon, guest-house attendant, etc. However, Clause 11 of this Circular stipulated that the period from diagnosis to decision on fitness or alternative employment would be treated as leave without pay. The petitioners amended their petitions to challenge Clause 11, contending that it was ultra vires Section 20 of the 2016 Act because it violated the protection of pay and service conditions during disability, and the requirement to treat absence due to disability as leave of the appropriate kind. The petitioners argued that the Circular was also violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, had earlier passed interim orders recognizing the hardship faced by the drivers and directing MSRTC to take steps for alternative employment and payment of salaries. The final judgment considered the submissions on the validity of Clause 11 and the overall obligation of MSRTC under the disability legislation.
Headnote
A) Disability Law - Termination of Employment - Section 20, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 47, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) - The termination of drivers diagnosed with colour blindness without offering alternative employment violates the statutory mandate to protect employees acquiring disability - Petitioners challenged Circular dated 29.07.2016 denying alternative jobs, and Clause 11 of the superseding Circular dated 23.01.2020 which treated the intervening period as leave without pay, arguing it contravened Section 20 and Articles 14, 15, and 21 - The Court examined the legislative scheme and the obligations of MSRTC (Paras 2.9-2.10, 3) B) Employment Law - Alternative Employment - Same Pay Scale and Service Benefits - Section 20, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The circular’s provision declaring the period between termination and re-employment as leave without pay was challenged as ultra vires the Act’s requirement to treat absence due to disability as leave of the kind due and to maintain pay and service conditions in the alternative post - Petitioners contended that they were entitled to full salary during the period (Paras 2.16-2.17, 3) C) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 15, 21 - Discrimination against disabled - The action of MSRTC in denying alternative employment and treating the period as leave without pay was challenged as unconstitutional - Petitioner argued that the circular violated the guarantee of equality, prohibition of discrimination, and right to life under the Constitution - The Court noted the sensitivity required towards employees who acquired disability (Paras 3, Order dated 25.11.2019)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Clause 11 of the Circular dated 23 January 2020 issued by MSRTC, treating the period from medical unfitness to alternative employment as leave without pay, is ultra vires Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether the termination of colour-blind drivers without providing alternative employment violates the Act and the Constitution
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- prohibits dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires disability
- mandates shifting to another post with same pay scale and service benefits
- and deems period of absence as leave of appropriate kind
- Circular treating intervening period as leave without pay is ultra vires
- violation of Articles 14
- 15
- and 21 of the Constitution of India
