The Punjab and Haryana High Court has unequivocally ruled that when an employee acquires a disability during their tenure, they possess the right to retain their job even when there are no specific positions designed for accommodating disabled workers.

The bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi ruling carries significant weight, essentially prohibiting the compulsory retirement of employees who become disabled while in service. The judgment, grounded in the provisions of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, also mandates that the concerned authorities must establish an additional position until these individuals reach the age of retirement if no alternative role is available to accommodate the disabled employee. Mere reliance on the absence of a vacant position as a reason for retiring a disabled employee is considered inadequate.

The ruling came in a 17-year-old case where an employee, working as a driver in the transport department, had challenged instructions dated August 20, 1992, by which he was compulsorily retired from service on the ground that he was no longer fit to perform the duties following an accident.

During the proceedings, the Bench was informed that the petitioner had been appointed to the position in April 1989 and had experienced a disability due to an accident in May 2000. He was subsequently forced into retirement by the order issued on November 27, 2013.

Justice Sethi also noted that the question of whether a disabled employee could be retired upon acquiring a disability during their service had been previously addressed by a Division Bench. This previous case involved an employee working as a driver in Haryana Roadways' transport department who was retired from service on the basis of being declared unfit to perform their duties.

Justice Sethi asserted the counsel for the state and other respondents was not able to rebut that the Division Bench in somewhat similar circumstances had already granted the benefit claimed by the petitioner. All arguments raised in the present petition were considered and rejected by the Division Bench.

Allowing the writ petition, Justice Sethi ordered the setting aside of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner. “The petitioner will be treated in service for all intents and purposes from the date of passing of the impugned order till he attained the age of superannuation and will also be entitled for the salary on the post he was working at the time when the impugned order was passed,” Justice Sethi asserted.