Decided on: 1 August 2025
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
Citation: 2025 INSC 920
The Supreme Court affirmed that Colour blindness alone can’t justify blanket job termination, deeming an employee unfit for all roles due to specific medical conditions.
Facts
In the present case, Joseph, the appellant, was appointed as a driver of the Telangana state transport, and he had passed all the medical requirements; however, during the regular medical tests, he was found to have colour blindness, which led to his retirement from the service, declared unfit for the post of driver. The appellant challenged the finding that he was unfit to work as a driver and, as an alternative, asked for another job if he was declared “medically unfit”.
His appeal was rejected, and when he approached the Medical Board of the corporation’s hospital, it confirmed the earlier decision that he was unfit. He then requested alternate employment, but the corporation denied it, stating that the rules do not allow giving other jobs to drivers found to be colour blind, providing some monetary benefits, mentioning that alternate jobs are given only to a possible extent.
The appellant then went to the High Court seeking a direction to the respondent corporation to provide him with an alternate employment his disability falls under the category of disablement under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, would be violative section 42 of the aforesaid act and also article 14 and 21 of the constitution of the India. The appellant also relied upon clause 14 of MOS, which stated that the ‘drivers’ would be provided with alternate employment.
The single judge held that it fell under the category of colour under the aforementioned act, aggrieved by that the respondent filed an appeal to the division, arguing that Joseph was illiterate and unqualified, so no other job was available, reversed it, relying on an earlier SC case (B.S. Reddy), and said he wasn’t entitled under the Disabilities Act.
Issues
- Was the Appellant’s retirement for colour blindness valid when no alternative job was considered?
- Does the 1979 settlement guarantee redeployment with pay protection for colour-blind drivers?
- Can the 1986 settlement or later circulars override the 1979 settlement rights?
- Did the High Court wrongly rely on B.S. Reddy without considering the industrial settlement?
Court Analysis
The Court held that the corporation’s refusal to provide alternate employment to a color-blind driver was unjustified. Even under the 1986 settlement (MOS), Clause 14 required that alternate jobs be explored “to the extent possible,” which meant an active effort to identify suitable posts. By failing to consider this and relying only on internal instructions, the corporation acted in violation of both the settlement terms and the principles of natural justice, further affirming that “The employer’s discretion ends where the employee’s dignity begins.” Hence, the inaction was procedurally and substantively invalid.
The court of the two judge bench (Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar said that, “…we find it necessary to reaffirm that even in the absence of such contractual rights, employees who acquire disabilities during service must not be abandoned or prematurely retired without being afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity for reassignment.
The obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, dignity, and equal treatment.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, cancelled the earlier judgment, and ordered the employer to give the appellant a suitable job that matches his health condition, but with the same pay scale he had earlier. This must be done within 8 weeks. The Court also said that the appellant should receive 25% of his pending salary, allowances, and other benefits from the date he was removed from service until the date he is taken back.