Disability service protection: unlawful dismissal after acquisition of mental disability cannot stand, and complaint jurisdiction extends to service grievances.
The Commissioner under Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities Act may examine complaints alleging deprivation of disability-related rights, including unlawful dismissal from service, and may inquire into the facts and records where needed. Read with Section 47, that power extends to service grievances after acquisition of disability. The document states that dismissal of an employee who acquired mental disability during service, without a proper departmental inquiry and in disregard of the statutory protection against dispensing with service, was void. It also notes that back wages for unauthorised absence and delay in approaching the Commissioner were denied, while reinstatement and consequential salary relief were sustained.
Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 could examine a complaint challenging dismissal from service of a disabled employee; (ii) whether the dismissal of the appellant, passed while she was suffering from mental disability, was void and entitled her to reinstatement and consequential reliefs.
Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 could examine a complaint challenging dismissal from service of a disabled employee.
Analysis: Section 62 empowers the Commissioner to look into complaints concerning deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and non-implementation of laws, rules, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions meant for their welfare and protection. Read with Section 47, the power extends to complaints relating to dispensing with service or reducing an employee in rank after acquisition of disability. The function is not formal or illusory, but requires application of mind to the complaint and, where necessary, inquiry into the facts and records.
Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to examine the complaint and to act on the grievance regarding dismissal.
Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the appellant, passed while she was suffering from mental disability, was void and entitled her to reinstatement and consequential reliefs.
Analysis: The appellant had acquired mental disability during service and the medical material showed disability in the range of 40 to 70 per cent. Dismissal was ordered without a proper departmental inquiry and in disregard of the protection under Section 47(1), which prohibits dispensing with service of an employee who acquires disability during service and requires shifting to another post or a supernumerary post where adjustment is not possible. The record also disclosed violation of natural justice. Back wages for the period of unauthorised absence and delay in approaching the Commissioner were rightly denied, but the illegal dismissal itself could not stand.
Conclusion: The dismissal was void and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and regular salary from 1.2.2008, with arrears as directed by the Court.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the orders of the High Court were set aside, the Commissioner's order was sustained, and the appellant was directed to be restored to service with consequential monetary relief in the manner ordered.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commissioner under Section 62 may inquire into and redress deprivation of disability-related rights, including unlawful dismissal from service, and an employee who acquires disability during service cannot be validly dispensed with in violation of Section 47(1).
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
