Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 21st August, 2022 at 19:29 IST
In response to the hardship of a physically impaired worker, the Supreme Court ruled that disabled workers should not be required to give up seniority in order to choose their posting location in accordance with a helpful circular.
The concerned circular was released by the Rajasthan government’s finance division. It instructed the hiring authorities to take into account posting people with disabilities at or close to the location they choose at the time of appointment.
The physically disabled appellant was hired in 1993, before the circular was passed in 2000, and a bench made up of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari concluded that even though the physically disabled appellant was hired before the circular was issued in order to allow handicapped employees to choose a convenient location for posting, the benefit of the circular would be extended to those candidates who were hired prior to its issuance.
The court held that the purpose of the circular issued for posting disabled people to places of their choice was to enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may be easily available, while noting that one of the obstacles/disadvantages faced by physically disabled people was the inability to move freely and easily.
In addition, the distance from the place of residence was an important factor for frequent long-distance commuters.
The judge ruled that, “The benefit that has been provided to the disabled through the circular/government order cannot be taken away by requiring the exercise of the right to receive three benefits under terms and conditions that would make the benefit pointless.”
“The high court’s single bench and division bench both failed to take into account the breadth and depth of the justification, which has no relevance to the state of seniority.”
“We believe that the high court has shown greater sensitivity and emphasis towards the plight of a physically challenged person. The high court did not understand that it is against article 14b of the constitution to treat people who are not equal as equals while ignoring their particular needs.”
As a result, the respondents were given instructions to take into account the service the appellant provided in Hanumangarh and restore the appellant’s seniority in the state to the original position.