Supreme Court: Employees with Disabilities Can’t Be Retired Prematurely, Even without Contractual Rights

The Supreme Court has once again upheld the rights of employees who acquire disabilities while in service. It ruled that such employees must not be abandoned or prematurely retired, even if they lack contractual rights.

Background: Disability during Service and Legal Battle

The Supreme Court has once again upheld the rights of employees who acquire disabilities while in service. It ruled that such employees must not be abandoned or prematurely retired, even if they lack contractual rights. This decision came in a civil appeal against a Telangana High Court judgment that had favored the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). Supreme Court: Employees with Disabilities Can’t Be Retired Prematurely, Even Without Contractual Rights

The two-judge bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar made it clear: employers must provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment. The Court emphasized that this obligation is not based on administrative discretion, but on constitutional and statutory principles like equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.

Facts of the Case: Driver Declared Unfit Due to Colour Blindness

The Appellant joined APSRTC (now TSRTC) in 2014 as a driver after meeting all eligibility conditions. However, a routine medical test revealed that he was colour blind. As a result, the corporation declared him medically unfit for driving.

He appealed the decision and requested alternate employment, but the authorities rejected his request, citing the absence of rules supporting reassignment for colour-blind drivers. The Respondent Corporation then prematurely retired him and offered a financial settlement.

The Appellant challenged the retirement in the High Court, relying on a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) signed between the corporation and workers' union. Clause 14 of this MOS allowed drivers found unfit to be reassigned to other roles. While a Single Judge supported the Appellant’s claim, the Division Bench overturned the order. He then approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s reasoning: Obligation to Reassign, Even Without Contractual Rights

The Supreme Court strongly criticized TSRTC’s failure to explore reassignment options. It ruled that retirement on medical grounds should be the last resort and only after exhausting all efforts to redeploy the employee.

The Court stated:

“The failure to explore alternate employment before medical retirement is not a mere technical lapse—it is a substantive violation of the employee’s right to livelihood and equality.”

The Court noted that employers carry the burden of proving that no suitable alternative positions are available. A simple medical certificate or silence in the rulebook cannot justify retirement.

Importantly, the Bench explained that this obligation to accommodate employees with disabilities applies even when there are no contractual rights in place. It reaffirmed that public employers must adjust, not exclude, when disability arises during employment.

Beyond Contractual Rights: A Constitutional Duty

The Court declared that the obligation to provide alternate employment is not rooted in compassion but in constitutional discipline. It pointed out that existing laws, including earlier cases like Kunal Singh, already require employers to offer reassignment.

This responsibility, the Court said, goes beyond contractual rights. Even where no agreement exists, constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 demand fair treatment.

The Court also referred to a previous case, Mohamed Ibrahim, which recognized that even employees with colour blindness should be accommodated, if they can perform other tasks. To ignore such abilities is to apply the law in a narrow, unjust manner.

“Inaction is not neutrality,” the Court remarked. Failing to assess the Appellant’s capabilities or available vacancies amounted to institutional exclusion, violating both statutory mandates and human dignity.

Conclusion: Reintegration, Not Removal

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Appellant was wrongly retired without proper evaluation. It noted that the Respondent ignored Clause 14 of the MOS, failed to assess alternative roles, and violated both statutory and constitutional obligations.

Importantly, the Court emphasized:

“The duty to accommodate is now woven into our legal fabric—not based on contractual rights alone, but on the promise of equal opportunity and human dignity.”

It held that courts must intervene when employees are removed for conditions they did not choose, especially when employers ignore viable alternatives.

Final Directions:

• The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and nullified the High Court’s judgment.
• TSRTC must reinstate the Appellant within 8 weeks to a suitable position with the same pay grade.
• The Appellant will receive 25% of the arrears of salary and benefits from the date of his termination to reinstatement.

This judgment sends a strong message: employers cannot hide behind the absence of contractual rights. They must honor the constitutional duty to support and accommodate employees who acquire disabilities during service.

Case details: [Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 920)]