Facts
The applicant was appointed as a Helper in the Khadi Village Industries Commission (KVIC) in 1987 and later promoted to Salesman-III in 1992
Source reference: p. 2, para 1In 2013, he suffered a paralytic attack resulting in a 50% disability, leading the respondents to assign him an alternative role as a cashier
Source reference: p. 2, para 1On August 9, 2019, the respondents issued an order for his compulsory retirement under Regulation-5(3)(b)(ii) of the KVIC Regulations-2007, read with FR 56(j)
Source reference: p. 2, para 1The Screening Committee recommended retirement citing his inability to perform "trading related activities" and his use of 13 days of leave in 2018-19
Source reference: p. 3, para 3; p. 5, para 6The applicant challenged this order seeking reinstatement and arrears
Source reference: p. 2, para 2Issues
1. Whether the compulsory retirement of a person with a service-acquired disability violates the statutory protections provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4-52. Whether the respondents’ action complied with the broad criteria and procedures for compulsory retirement established by the DoP Office Memorandum and Fundamental Rule 56(j)
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 5-7Law Applied
Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (formerly the 1995 Act), which mandates that no government establishment shall dispense with or reduce the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service, and provides for shifting such employees to suitable posts with protected pay
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) OM dated August 28, 2020, which outlines the broad criteria for the Review Committee under FR 56(j), specifically prohibiting retirement on grounds of "ineffectiveness" if performance has been satisfactory or if the individual is within one year of superannuation, unless there is a "sudden and steep fall" in competence
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 5Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the respondents’ decision to retire the applicant was "totally callous" and displayed a lack of sensitivity and non-application of mind regarding his disability status
Source reference: p. 5-6, para 7the applicant had already been successfully adjusted to a cashier’s role after his 2013 paralytic attack, his disability could not later be used as a ground for "ineffectiveness" to justify compulsory retirement
Source reference: p. 2, para 1; p. 5-6, para 7Under Section 20 of the Disability Act, the respondents were legally obligated to accommodate the applicant rather than terminate his service
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4the Screening Committee failed to follow the DoPT criteria, as taking 13 days of leave or being unable to perform "trading activities"—which were not part of his reassigned duties as a cashier—did not constitute a valid basis for invoking FR 56(j)
Source reference: p. 5, para 6; p. 6, para 8Holding
the impugned order was in total violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and the DoPT instructions
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated August 9, 2019, and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service. The respondents were ordered to provide all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances from the date of the compulsory retirement till reinstatement, within three weeks
Source reference: p. 6, para 8-9Original Court PDF
Pramod KumarvsKhadi & Village Industries Commission (kvic)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in