Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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