CH. JOSEPH versus THE TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHER

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 31-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 320 : 2025 INSC 920
Ch. Joseph 
v. 
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Other
(Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2025)
01 August 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
i) Whether the retirement of the appellant on medical grounds 
due to colour blindness, without offering alternative employment, 
is legally sustainable in light of applicable service regulations and 
binding settlements; ii) whether Clause 14 of the Memorandum of 
Settlement dated 17.12.1979, executed u/s.12(3) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, remains valid, binding, and enforceable 
despite the subsequent 1986 settlement and internal administrative 
circulars; iii) whether the respondents complied with their duty to 
make a bona fide assessment of alternative employment options 
for the appellant, as required by law, policy, and principles of 
natural justice; iv) whether the reliance placed by the High Court 
on B.S. Reddy was legally tenable in the context of the appellant’s 
independent rights under a binding industrial settlement.
Headnotes†
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – APSRTC Employees 
(Service) Regulations, 1964 – Regn. 6A(5)(b) – Appellant-
driver was found to be colour blind and was declared unfit 
to hold the post of driver – The appellant’s representation 
seeking alternate employment came to be rejected by the  
respondent-corporation – The corporation passed an order 
retiring the appellant – Whether the retirement of the appellant 
on medical grounds due to colour blindness, without offering 
alternative employment, is legally sustainable in light of 
applicable service regulations and binding settlements:
Held: 1. The appellant’s retirement from service on the ground of 
colour blindness was effected without any demonstrable effort by 
the respondent-corporation to identify or assess the feasibility of 
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
321
Ch. Joseph v. 
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Other
alternative employment, despite the appellant having expressed 
willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post – Such inaction 
violates both statutory obligation and administrative fairness.  
[Para 10.1]
2. The primary legal flaw lies in the assumption that medical 
unfitness for a particular post automatically entails incapacity 
for public service altogether – Colour blindness, though a 
disqualification for driving, does not render the appellant unfit to 
serve in any other non-driving role – There is no evidence that 
he was declared wholly incapacitated or incapable of performing 
other duties. [Para 13]
3. The MOS dated 17.12.1979 entered into u/s.12 (3) of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 between the employer and the union representing 
the workmen under Clause 14 would indicate that the drivers found 
with “colour blindness” would be provided an alternate job and all 
service benefits would stand protected – However, the Corporation 
has relied upon the subsequent agreement, namely Memorandum 
of Settlement (MOS) dated 22.12.1986 to stave off the claim 
for alternate employment raised by the appellant in the instant 
case – A plea has been raised in the Counter affidavit filed by the 
Corporation that the MOS dated 17.12.1979 has been superseded 
by the agreement of 1986 – The said contention is rejected – The 
agreement dated 22.12.1986 does not refer to the agreement dated 
17.12.1979 – In fact, Clause 5 (d) of the settlement agreement 
22.12.1986 would indicate, suitable alternate jobs would have to be 
identified and only in the event of not being possible to identify such 
job, recourse to payment of additional monetary benefit as per the 
proposal sent to the government will be given after government’s 
approval – The Settlement dated 22.12.1986 does not specifically 
supersede the settlement agreement of 17.12.1979 – It is only by 
way of a communication dated 10.11.2014, the benefit of alternate 
employment given to the drivers declared unfit due to “colour 
blindness” has been sought to be taken away which benefit was 
extended till that date. [Paras 14, 16, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3]
4. Retirement on medical grounds must be a measure of last 
resort, only after the employer exhausts all reasonable avenues 
for redeployment – This principle is inherent in the concept of 
“reasonable accommodation”, which is now recognised as an 
aspect of substantive equality under Articles 14 and 21 – The 
fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.