Fired after brain stroke, teacher gets back job as Allahabad HC cites ‘disability acquired during service’ in ruling
The petitioner who was appointed as an assistant teacher in 2013 – had suffered a brain stroke in 2016 – rendering him unable to perform his duties.
Fired after a brain stroke, a government assistant teacher got back his job after the Allahabad High Court held that employees who acquire a disability while on the job cannot simply be dismissed from service. Instead, the person must be shifted to a suitable post, said the Court.
The case involves a petitioner who was appointed as an assistant teacher in 2013 – after which he suffered a brain stroke in 2016 – rendering him unable to perform his duties. When he attempted to return to work in 2024, he was not allowed to resume his service.
According to a report by Live Law, the Allahabad High Court declared that the employer cannot fire the disabled employee – but instead ‘make efforts’ for shifting the person to a suitable post temporarily until a proper post opens up.
What the Allahabad HC said?
The High Court referred to Section 20 [Non-discrimination in employment] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act – while making the judgement.
“From perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2016 it is apparent that where an employee acquires a disability during his service, his services are not to be dispensed with rather efforts are to be made by the employer for shifting him to a suitable post and in the absence thereto, to continue him on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available," Live Law quoted Justice Abdul Moin as stating.
The court underscored that such protections are essential to ensure dignity, inclusion, and job security for persons with disabilities.
Why petitioner was not allowed to rejoin work?
Respondents had set up a committee to review the assistant teacher's case. The committee concluded that the petitioner was unable to perform teaching duties because he could neither write nor speak, and therefore could not be allowed to resume work.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he should be considered for an equivalent post under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities.
In response, the respondents’ counsel stated that the petitioner submitted his representation on August 30, 2024, after being absent for three years—from October 1, 2021—and that it had been rejected due to this prolonged absence. They also emphasised that the committee had found him unfit for teaching duties, which was the reason he was not permitted to rejoin.
However, the Allahabad High Court held that under Section 20(4) of 2016 Act, no government employee who acquired disability during service could be dispensed with.