UNION OF INDIA versus DEVENDRA KUMAR PANT & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
f 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 1 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
DEVENDRA KUMAR PANT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007) 
JULY 9, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection 
A 
B 
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s. 47 (2) -
Applicability of - Denial of promotion on account of non-
C 
fulfillment of minimum medical standard prescribed for 
promotion - Denial challenged taking the plea that non-
fulfillment of medical standard being on account of a disability, 
protection under the Act was available - Held: The medical 
standard having been fixed in the interest of public s.afety, 
D 
interest of employee concerned, co-employees and 
administration, protection uls 47 (2) not available - Service 
Law - Promotion. 
· 
As per Office Order No. 4/1990 dated 19.7.1990, the E 
medical standards were rationalized, whereby for the 
posts of junior Research Assistant and Senior Research 
Assistant, medical standard was upgraded from 82 to 81 
category. However, medical category for the post-of Chief 
Research Assistant wa!; retained as B-1 category. 
F 
Respondent-employee was promoted to the post of 
Chief Research Assistant with the condition that the 
promotion would be effective with effect from the date of 
submission of fitness certificate in B-1 medical category. G 
By subsequent Memos/Orders, he was asked to present 
" 
himself before concerned medical officers for 
examination. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-employee filed a petition before 
Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed. He fil~d writ 
petition taking a new plea that 81 category required 
colour perception, and that lack of colour perception 
being a disability, he was protected by s. 47(2) of Persons 
B With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. High Court 
allowed the writ, accepting the plea of disability. Hence 
the present appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Where the disability is likely to affect the 
maintenance of safety and security norms, or efficiency, 
then the stipulation of standards for maintaining such 
0 safety, security and efficiency will not be considered as 
denying a person with disability merely on the ground of 
his disability, but is denial of promotion by reason of the 
disability plus something more, that is adverse effect of 
the disability upon the employee's performance of the 
E higher duties or functions attached to the promotional 
post. Section 47(2) does not provide that even if the 
disability comes in the way of performance of higher 
duties and functions associated with the promotional 
post, promotion shall not be denied. Section 47(2) bars 
F promotion being denied to a person on the ground of 
disability, only if the disability does not affect his capacity 
to discharge the higher functions of a promotional post. 
Where the employer stipulates minimum standards for 
promotion keeping in view safety, security and efficiency, 
G and if the employee is unable to meet the higher minimum 
standards on account of any disability or failure to 
posses the minimum standards, then Section 47(2) will 
not be attracted, nor can it be pressed into service for 
seeking promotion. [Para 15] [16-8-F] 
H 
I-
UNION OF INDIA v. DEVENDRA KUMAR PANT & 
3 
ORS. 
~ 
2. While invoking or applying the provisions of the 
A 
Act, it is necessary to keep in view that the intention of 
the Act is to give a helping hand to persons with disability 
so that they can lead a self-reliant life with dignity and 
freedom. But the intention of the Act is not to jeopardize 
the safety and security of the public, co-employees, or the 
8 
employee himself or the safety and security of the 
f 
equipments or assets of the employer nor to accept 
reduced standards of safety and efficiency merely 
because the employee suffers from a disability. [Para 16] 
(16-G-H; 17-A-B] 
C 
3. In the instant case, Office Order No. 4/1990 makes 
it clear that the minimum medical standards have been 
fixed, taking into account the requirements in the medical 
manual with reference to interest cf public safety, interest o 
x 
of the employee himself and fellow employees and in the 
interest of the administration. If any employee or group 
of employees are of the view that a particular minimum 
medical standard prescribed does not serve the interest 
of public safety, interest of the employee and fellow E 
employees

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