Disabled employees cannot be terminated due to mental or physical incapacity; alternative placement or supernumerary posts required.

The petitioner, Dheeraj Prasad Suryavanshi (represented by his son due to mental disability), was appointed as a Chowkidar in the Pashu Chikitsa Vibhag (Department of Veterinary Services) on May 30, 1992.

Following a complaint regarding unauthorized absence from his posting at Mungeli, he was placed under suspension on November 24, 2008.

The petitioner contended that his absence was due to unsound mental health, supported by medical documentation.

The petitioner sought to quash the suspension order and claimed unpaid salary and subsistence allowances since 2008, citing a government circular protecting disabled employees.

The State argued that the absence was unauthorized and the petitioner failed to approach authorities with relevant documents.

1. Whether the petitioner’s father is entitled to protection against termination and entitled to service benefits/relocation under the State’s disability policy despite his unauthorized absence

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's representation regarding subsistence allowance and continuity of service in light of his mental disability

The court primarily relied on the State Government Circular dated October 1, 2005 (Circular No. F 16-2/2004/1/3), which incorporates the principles of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

This rule mandates that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service; if the employee is not suitable for their current post, they must be shifted to another post with the same pay scale and benefits, or kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable vacancy arises or they reach the age of superannuation.

The Court observed that while medical documents indicated the petitioner’s father’s mental status was not sound, it was also a matter of record that he had remained absent from his duties without authorization since 2008, leading to non-payment of salary.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the mental disability versus the misconduct of absence but found that the petitioner’s grievances regarding the suspension and benefits fell within the ambit of the protective Circular dated October 1, 2005.

By applying the circular to the facts, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was an administrative review by the competent authority to evaluate the disability claim against the service record.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a formal representation to the Deputy Director, Pashu Chikitsa Services, Korba (Respondent No. 3) within 30 days. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide said representation in light of the Circular dated October 1, 2005, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt.