Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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