Employee Acquiring Disability During Service Cannot Be Removed; Allahabad High Court Directs Placement on Suitable or Supernumerary Post
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin held that when an employee acquires a disability in the course of service, the employer cannot terminate their employment but must make efforts to place them in an appropriate position. Referring to Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court observed that an employee rendered unfit for their existing role due to disability should either be accommodated in another suitable post or continued on a supernumerary post until such placement becomes possible. The decision came in a case concerning a teacher who suffered a brain stroke while in service.
The case involved Laljee, an Assistant Teacher who joined in 2013 under respondents 6 and 7. On August 2, 2016, he suffered a brain stroke that rendered him unable to carry out teaching duties. After some recovery, he sought to rejoin duty on August 20, 2024, but was denied by the authorities following a committee report dated October 9, 2024, which stated he was unfit for teaching work due to his inability to speak, read, or write.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that medical leave was still outstanding and that under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, he was entitled to alternative employment. The counsel further relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763, which held that employees acquiring disabilities during service must be provided reasonable accommodation and cannot be terminated without exploring alternative roles.
The petitioner also sought the sanction of medical leave and payment of arrears of salary from October 1, 2021, along with consideration for an equivalent post.
In response, the State argued that the petitioner had remained absent since October 1, 2021, and only made a representation after three years, on August 30, 2024, seeking reinstatement. The respondents maintained that the petitioner, being unfit for teaching work as per the committee’s medical assessment, could not be permitted to rejoin.
The committee constituted by the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, included a senior physician nominated by the Chief Medical Officer, who confirmed the petitioner’s inability to perform teaching duties. No independent medical board, however, had been formed by the respondents.
The Court reproduced the provision, observing that “no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service.” The section further provides that if an employee becomes unsuitable for his post, he must be shifted to another post with the same pay and benefits, or if not possible, kept on a supernumerary post until retirement.
The Court recorded that “as per provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act, 2016 no government employer can dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired disability during his or her service.” It further noted, “if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he is holding, he shall be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and benefits.”
Justice Moin held that “where an employee acquires a disability during his service, his services are not to be dispensed with rather efforts are to be made by the employer for shifting him to a suitable post and in the absence thereto, to continue him on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available.”
The Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court judgment in Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763), quoting key passages to reaffirm the principle of reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court had observed in that case: “When a disability is acquired in the course of service, the legal framework must respond not with exclusion but with adjustment. The duty of a public employer is not merely to discharge functionaries, but to preserve human potential where it continues to exist. The law does not permit the severance of service by the stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting the possibility of meaningful redeployment.”
Justice Moin also referred to the Supreme Court’s recognition that the “principle of reasonable accommodation acknowledges that if disability should be remedied and opportunities are to be affirmatively created for facilitating the development of the disabled.”
The judgment also noted the Supreme Court’s discussion in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, where the Court held that providing appropriate accommodation to individuals with disabilities ensures inclusion and upholds dignity. The Allahabad High Court applied these principles to conclude that the petitioner, having acquired a disability during service, must be accommodated through redeployment rather than termination.
Justice Moin stated that “it is apparent that even the respondents on the basis of the said report of the committee are of the view that teaching work cannot be assigned to the petitioner yet at the same time considering the provisions of 20(4) of the Act 2016, alternative post has to be identified for the petitioner.”
Based on the above findings, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions to the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, respondent no. 5, to act in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Ch. Joseph (supra). Justice Abdul Moin directed that “the District Inspector of Schools Barabanki shall act in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph (supra) by identifying a suitable post for the petitioner with the same pay scale and service benefits.”
The Court further ordered that if it was not possible to adjust the petitioner on any post, “he be kept on a supernumerary post till a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.” The District Inspector of Schools was directed to complete the action within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
“The other benefits as flow out from the order being passed by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of this judgement would be accorded to the petitioner within next six weeks of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The period from the date of absence of the petitioner till an order is passed in pursuance of this judgement of alternative appointment, shall be regularized by the respondents as per rules.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on September 22, 2025.
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri Satyanshu Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Saharsh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Shri Raj K. Singh Suryavanshi, Advocate
Case Title: Laljee v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:58600
Case Number: Writ-A No. 7815 of 2024
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin
