SUPREME COURT RE-AFFIRMS DISBALED EMPLOYEE’S RIGHTS AND DIRECTS TSRTC TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE EMPLOYMENT

In a significant verdict, handed down on August 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered clarity and justice in ‘Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 2025)’. The Court directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver, Joseph, who had been retired solely on the grounds of colour blindness, with the mandate to provide alternate employment and restore his service entitlements.

 

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Ch. Joseph was appointed as a driver with the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in 2014. During a routine medical examination, he was found to be colour blind and declared medically unfit for driving duties. Despite Joseph’s willingness and repeated appeals to be assigned to a suitable non-driving post, the corporation retired him in January 2016, citing internal policies and denied him continued employment.

Joseph approached the High Court, relying on service regulations, constitutional guarantees of equality, and a crucial industrial settlement from 1979 that provided for alternate employment to drivers rendered colour blind. While a Single Judge ruled in his favour, directing the corporation to provide alternate work, the Division Bench reversed the order, aligning with an earlier Supreme Court decision in B.S. Reddy v. APSRTC[1] and restricted relief to monetary benefits without reinstatement.

 

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDING

Delivering a detailed judgement, the bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar conducted a thorough review of both factual circumstances and the relevant legal framework.

• Failure to provide alternate employment: The Supreme Court sharply criticised TSRTC’s lack of effort to identify or assess alternative posts for Joseph. The bench noted that colour blindness may disqualify one from driving but does not incapacitate a person from all forms of work. The Corporation’s action was found to violate both administrative fairness and legal obligations under binding industrial settlements.
• Binding nature of Industrial Settlements: Central to the ruling was the 1979 Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, especially Clause 14, which unequivocally entitles colour blind drivers to alternate jobs with pay protection and preserved seniority. The Court clarified that subsequent agreements and administrative circulars cannot override such binding statutory settlements unless there is an express repeal – which was absent in this case.
• Principle of Reasonable Accommodation: Citing precedents like Kunal Singh v. Union of India[2] and Mohamed Ibrahim v. TANGEDCO[3], the Court affirmed that employees who become disabled during service are entitled to meaningful accommodation, not premature termination. Colour blindness, even if not categorised under statutory disability definitions, attracts the employer’s duty to find alternative work if feasible. The judgment linked these requirements to the broader constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 21).
• Invalid reliance on Administrative Circulars and Prior Judgements: TSRTC’s internal circulars from 2014 and 2015, which excluded colour blind drivers from alternate employment, were held to be subordinate to the statutory settlement and thus invalid. The Supreme Court also distinguished the current case from B.S. Reddy, highlighting that Joseph’s claim stemmed from independently enforceable service conditions, not just the provisions of disability statutes.
• Systematic Lapses and Need for Procedural Diligence: The Corporation’s total inaction in assessing available posts, failing to respond to Joseph’s specific representations, and blanket denial of alternate work was deemed a breach of natural justice and substantive law.

 

DIRECTIONS AND REFORMATIVE MEASURES

The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal, ordering TSRTC to appoint Joseph to a suitable alternate post on the same pay grade he held before termination within eight weeks. Joseph was awarded 25% of arrears for the period of wrongful retirement and the entire period was to count as continuous service.

Beyond the immediate case, the Court’s reasoning underscores several key procedural guidelines for public employers:

1. Active assessment of alternate employment: Employers must make genuine, documented efforts to reassign employees who acquire disabilities.
2. Statutory settlements over circulars: Industrial settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act carry statutory force and cannot be negated by later circulars or generic policy changes.

• Benefit of reasonable doubt: Where uncertainty exists, employees’ rights to continued livelihood must be preserved.

1. Constitutional Commitment: The protection for employees with acquired disabilities is now recognised as part of constitutional discipline, particularly regarding equal treatment and right to livelihood.

 

KEY TAKE AWAYS FROM THE RULING

1. Protection for acquired disabilities: Employees who acquire disabilities—physical or otherwise—during service must be considered for alternate suitable employment before termination is resorted to.
2. Binding nature of Industrial Agreements: Clauses creating specific entitlements in settlements have enduring legal validity, regardless of subsequent administrative shifts.
3. Reasonable accommodation is a Legal Duty: The judgment expands the concept of reasonable accommodation even beyond the statutory list—in line with leading precedents and constitutional norms.
4. Process Matters: Employers must show concrete, bona fide attempts at redeployment and fair treatment; inaction or mere technicality will not suffice.

 

CONCLUSION

This ruling stands as a timely reassurance for employees in the face of acquired disability, establishing that public sector entities cannot hide behind administrative instructions or generic settlements to deny protection and alternate employment. The Supreme Court’s decision signals a deepening commitment to substantive equality, procedural justice, and humane employer-employee relationships. By restoring both the rights and dignity of Joseph, the judgment charts the path for systemic reforms and safeguards against unjust exclusion from public employment in similar cases.

 

Contributed By:

Soumen Dash
(Associate)

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled What Is Impeachment? Legal Process to Remove Judges and Officials in India | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnZ4dWzjPns&t=82s

[1] (2018) 12 SCC 704

[2] (2003) 4 SCC 524

[3] 2023 INSC 914