Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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