The petitioner was a bus driver with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC).
During service, he acquired a permanent disability, rendering him unfit for his original role as a driver.
Instead of offering him a suitable alternative post, the employer refused to accommodate him, effectively ending his service.
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower forums denied relief.
⚖️ 2. Supreme Court’s Observations
✅ Reasonable Accommodation is a Legal Obligation
The Court held that employers—especially public sector bodies—cannot terminate employees who acquire a disability during service without first exploring alternative employment options.
This stems from both constitutional guarantees and statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
✅ Alternate Post Must Be Offered
The employer is duty-bound to identify and offer a post the employee is capable of performing, unless:
No such post is available,
Or the organizational structure genuinely cannot accommodate the person.
✅ Protecting Dignity and Livelihood
The Court emphasized the need to uphold the dignity of labour, stating that disability acquired in service should not be penalized.
The right to livelihood under Article 21 includes the right to reasonable opportunity to continue employment.
📜 3. Legal Basis
🗂️ A. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Section 20: Prohibits discrimination in employment against persons with disabilities.
Section 2(y): Defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally.
🗂️ B. Constitution of India
Article 21: Right to life includes the right to livelihood and dignity.
Article 14: Equal protection of laws prohibits arbitrary discrimination.
Article 41 & 46 (DPSPs): Enjoin the State to promote welfare and protection for disabled persons.
📚 4. Precedents Cited
Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153 → Affirmed that public employment rules must accommodate persons with disabilities.
Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 → SC held that failure to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities violates Articles 14 and 21.
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761 → Reinforced sensitivity and support in cases involving persons with disabilities.
🔎 5. Court’s Relief
The SC set aside the order of termination and directed APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner in a suitable alternative post with continuity of service and monetary benefits.
Emphasized the need for institutional mechanisms to proactively identify roles for differently-abled employees.
💡 6. Significance of the Judgment
✅ Strengthens the doctrine of reasonable accommodation in Indian employment law.
✅ Reiterates that disability during service is not a ground for dismissal, and that rehabilitative employment is a legal right.
✅ Sends a strong message to public and private employers to align with inclusion and dignity-based employment models.
