In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to ensure that all officers are made aware of the rights of persons with disabilities, as guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and underscores the necessity of protecting the dignity and rights of disabled employees in government establishments.
The case involved Muhammad Naeem, a bus driver with UPSRTC, who developed a locomotor disability during the course of his service. Despite several medical evaluations certifying his 40% permanent disability in the left arm and leg, Naeem was continuously denied suitable light duty by the Corporation. His disability was assessed by multiple medical boards, including those constituted by the Chief Medical Officers (CMO) of Hamirpur and Lucknow, as well as doctors from King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow. All assessments recommended light duty due to his condition.
“The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow shall ensure that all officers are duly sensitized to the rights of persons with disabilities under the Disabilities Act and the legislative intent of the Disabilities Act is brought to fruition by faithful implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent Corporation.” — Justice Ajay Bhanot
Read also:- Kerala HC Sets Aside Tribunal Order, Says Time to Get Award Copy Must Be Excluded in Appeals
Despite repeated medical advice and recommendations, the Corporation denied Muhammad Naeem any suitable work and salary from March 2022. The impugned order issued on October 4, 2024, rejected his claim, stating there was no provision for assigning light duties to drivers. Aggrieved by this denial, Naeem approached the High Court.
The Court, after a thorough analysis of the case and related provisions of the Disabilities Act, observed that the Corporation’s actions reflected a "disconcerting disregard for the law" and a "callous attitude" toward an employee with disability.
The Court referred to Section 20 of the Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, and Section 21, which mandates equal opportunity policies in every government establishment. Additionally, it emphasized Section 33, which obligates the government to identify posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Read also:- MP High Court Quashes NEET-UG 2025 Re-Test Order Over Exam Day Power Outage
“Section 33 of the Disabilities Act pivots the implementation of the said enactment in the respondent Corporation. The process... contemplates that the identified post aligns with the respective disability in a manner that holder of the post can discharge the duties attached to the post without being impeded by the disability.”
Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that Naeem’s locomotor disability, listed under the Schedule of the Act, clearly qualified him for accommodation under the law. The Corporation’s denial of light duty, despite multiple medical confirmations, violated Sections 20, 21, and 33 of the Act.
“The rights of persons with disabilities cannot be transgressed on account of the failure of the respondent authorities to comply with the said provisions of the Disabilities Act. The respondent authorities cannot take advantage of their omissions to deny rights vested in the petitioner by law.”
Read also:- Horlicks Biscuit Row: Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Hindustan Unilever MD
Accordingly, the Court:
- Quashed the October 4, 2024, rejection order;
- Directed UPSRTC to assign Muhammad Naeem to light duties;
- Ordered payment of salary arrears from March 2022 with 7% interest;
- Directed payment within four months of receipt of the court order;
- Imposed an additional penalty of ₹50,000 if payments are delayed beyond the stipulated period;
- Mandated the Managing Director to conduct training and issue orders sensitising officers to the rights of persons with disabilities;
- Ordered regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance.
Case Title: Muhammad Naeem v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others (AB) 248 [WRIT - A No. - 18224 of 2024]