Medically decategorized railway employees must receive equivalent alternative posts with protected pay and service benefits.

The applicant, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was appointed on 14 November 2014 and was serving in Level-4, Grade Pay (GP) ₹2,400 after grant of MACP on 1 August 2025.

He was medically de-categorised on 16 April 2026 and declared unfit for the post of Constable, RPF, but fit for alternative employment in lower medical categories.

The respondents offered him appointment as Senior Cook (Operating) in Level-2, GP ₹1,900, with pay protection in GP ₹2,400.

The applicant challenged the consequential orders/notices dated 15 July 2026 and 23 July 2026 and sought absorption in a suitable alternative post carrying the same pay scale and service benefits, or continuation on a special supernumerary post in Level-4, GP ₹2,400 until such alternative employment was found.

During the proceedings, he relied on his pending representation dated 16 July 2026 seeking suitable alternative employment, including the posts of Senior Clerk or Ticket Collector.

The respondents agreed that the representation would be considered under the applicable rules and instructions.

1. Whether the respondents could shift the medically de-categorised applicant from his regular post in Level-4, GP ₹2,400 to a lower-level post as Senior Cook, merely with pay protection, instead of providing alternative employment in the same pay scale and with the same service benefits.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to continue on a special supernumerary post in Level-4, GP ₹2,400, with suitable alternative duties, pending identification of an appropriate alternative post.

3. Whether the impugned orders/notices dated 15 July 2026 and 23 July 2026 were contrary to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Paras 1301 and 1303 of the IREM.

The Tribunal applied Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which prohibits an establishment from dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service and requires, where the original post is unsuitable, shifting to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if no immediate adjustment is possible, the employee must be retained on a supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available.

It also relied on Paras 1301 and 1303 of Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. I, which require absorption of medically de-categorised railway servants in a post carrying the same pay scale and service benefits and permit continuation on a special supernumerary post in the employee’s previous grade pending alternative employment.

The Tribunal referred to Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as embodying substantially similar protection.

Relying on Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524, it held that the protection under Section 47 is mandatory and must be interpreted in a manner advancing the beneficial object of disability legislation.

It also followed the Coordinate Bench decision in N.S. Harmesha Rao v. Union of India, O.A. No. 310/00222/2023, decided on 29 January 2026, which held that placement in a lower post, even with pay protection, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of alternative employment in the same pay scale and with the same service benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acquired the relevant medical disability during service and could no longer perform the duties of Constable, RPF.

Under Section 47 and Paras 1301 and 1303 of the IREM, the respondents were required first to locate a suitable alternative post in the same pay scale and preserve the applicant’s service benefits; mere protection of his former pay while placing him in the lower-level post of Senior Cook did not meet that requirement.

The Tribunal treated the offer of a Level-2 post as legally insufficient because the applicant had been regularly working in Level-4, GP ₹2,400, and the governing provisions protect not only the amount of pay but also the corresponding pay scale and service benefits.

Since a suitable equivalent post had not yet been located, the applicant was entitled to remain on a special supernumerary post in GP ₹2,400 with suitable alternative or light duties pending such placement.

The impugned orders were therefore held to be in flagrant violation of the statutory and departmental protections.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 23 July 2026 and notice dated 15 July 2026.

The General Manager, Northern Railway, was directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 16 July 2026 and provide him a suitable alternative post in Level-4, GP ₹2,400, carrying the same pay scale and service benefits, preferably within six months from receipt of the certified order.

Until such alternative employment was located, the respondents were directed to retain the applicant on a special supernumerary post in GP ₹2,400 and assign him suitable alternative or light duties.

There was no order as to costs, and the pending M.A. was also disposed of.