Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

 Denial of Promotion Based on Disability Not a Violation: High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: June 16, 2023

In a significant ruling, the High Court has held that the denial of promotion to a disabled employee based on medical eligibility conditions does not constitute a violation of the law. Delivering the judgment, Justice Vrushali V. Joshi stated, "The legislative intent is clear. The promotion to a disabled person may as well be denied in order to ensure that the safety and security of the other personnel of the paramilitary force, and indeed the personal safety and security of the disabled employee, is not jeopardized." The court emphasized that the denial of promotion is not solely based on disability, but rather on the need to maintain safety and security in the paramilitary forces.

The case revolved around the distinction between "combatised" and "combatant" personnel and the interpretation of exemption notifications. The petitioner argued that as a combatised employee, not expected to be deputed in combat situations, he should be exempted from the promotion rules that require maintaining medical category SHAPE-1. However, the court rejected this argument, stating, "If unfortunately, due to disability, it is not possible for an employee to satisfy the benchmark, no inference can be drawn that the employee is discriminated and that the denial of promotion is only due to the disability."

Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, the High Court reaffirmed that the prescription of minimum medical standards for promotion should not be considered as a denial of promotional opportunity to persons with disabilities. It stressed the importance of maintaining safety, security, and efficiency in paramilitary forces, stating, "The intention of the Act is to give a helping hand to persons with disability so that they can lead a self-reliant life with dignity and freedom. But the intention of the Act is not to jeopardize the safety and security of the public, co-employees, or the employee himself."

The court further highlighted the distinction between removal or reduction in rank and denial of promotion, stating that disabled employees cannot be removed or reduced in rank. The first option available is to adjust the employee against another post, and if that is not feasible, the employee can be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable position becomes available or until they reach the age of superannuation. However, the court clarified that the protective mechanism is triggered only if the disabled employee is discriminated against and denied promotion solely based on their disability.

While dismissing the petition, the court left the question of the applicability of exemption notifications to combatised personnel open for consideration in an appropriate case. This judgment serves as a reminder that while the law provides protection to disabled employees, considerations of safety and security must also be taken into account in certain positions.

This decision by the High Court reaffirms the importance of striking a balance between protecting the rights of disabled employees and ensuring the safety and security of individuals and the organization as a whole.

Date of Decision: 02 May , 2023

Shri Shyamkumar vs The Union of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Shri-Shyam-vs-UOI-Bomb.-HC-2May-23.pdf"]

Latest Legal News