Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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"]

Similar News