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 Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme 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

Supreme Court's Paves the Way for Equal Employment Opportunities for Disabled Individuals

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities, emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation. The ruling, delivered by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, sets a significant precedent in the realm of employment for individuals with disabilities.

The judgment, handed down on October 16, 2023, centers on the case of an applicant who faced color vision deficiency, which came to light after being selected for the position of Assistant Engineer (AE) in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO).

The Court's observation on the principle of reasonable accommodation resonated strongly:

 "Reasonable accommodation thus, is 'appropriate modification and adjustments' that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with 'disproportionate or undue burden.'"

The appellant, a graduate in electrical engineering with practical experience, was denied the position by TANGEDCO on the grounds of color vision deficiency. TANGEDCO contended that the appellant did not qualify as a person with benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, the Court found that TANGEDCO's offered position as Junior Assistant was unsuitable for the appellant, and the refusal was justified.

The judgment directed TANGEDCO to appoint and continue the appellant as AE (Electrical) with appropriate responsibilities, including 50% of full arrears of salary and allowances, and full service continuity from the original date of appointment.

This landmark decision underscores the duty of employers to accommodate persons with disabilities without imposing an undue burden. It expands the scope of what constitutes a disability under the law and highlights the importance of ensuring equal opportunities and rights for individuals with disabilities in the workplace.

The judgment also builds on previous rulings emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation, affirming that each individual's dignity and worth must be respected, regardless of their disability. The ruling draws a clear line between formal equality and substantive equality, emphasizing that the latter aims at achieving equality of outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

This verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only in the employment sector but also in the broader context of ensuring the rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities in various facets of society.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

MOHAMED IBRAHIM vs THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/16-Oct-2023_Mohd_Ibrahim_Vs_Charman_and_Director.pdf"]

Latest Legal News