Railways must provide medically de-categorised employees same-scale alternative posts or supernumerary protection pending suitable vacancies.

The applicant, a Railway employee working as Blacksmith-I in Level-5/Grade Pay ₹2,800, was medically declared unfit for that post but fit for alternative employment subject to specified restrictions.

The respondents offered him a Helper post in Level-1, with protection of his existing pay.

He challenged that offer, relying on the statutory protection for medically de-categorised employees and on a vacancy statement showing seven vacancies in the Level-5 Senior Clerk post.

The respondents maintained that the Level-1 offer complied with Railway rules and protected his pay.

1. Whether offering the applicant a Level-1 post with pay protection, rather than a post carrying the same pay scale and service benefits as his former post, complied with the applicable statutory and Railway protections

2. Whether the respondents were required to consider the Level-5 vacancies shown in the record, including Senior Clerk vacancies, before offering lower-level employment

Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 prohibits dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service; if the employee is unsuitable for the post held, the employee must be shifted to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits, or kept on a supernumerary post if adjustment is not possible.

IREM paras. 1301 and 1303 similarly require alternative employment with the same pay scale and service benefits and provide for a special supernumerary post pending suitable placement; paras. 1304–1305 require consideration of suitable posts in light of the employee’s capacity and permit exploration beyond the immediate unit, division or department.

Administrative instructions, including Master Circular No. 25, must be construed consistently with that statutory protection and cannot justify bypassing consideration of a suitable same-scale post.

The Tribunal also relied on Nem Singh v. Union of India & Ors., which interpreted IREM para. 1303 as protecting placement in the employee’s pre-de-categorisation grade, and referred to Vallamsetla Shankar Rao and Ch. Joseph in support of meaningful alternative-employment consideration.

The applicant’s medical opinion established that he could perform alternative work, subject to restrictions; it did not establish that he was incapable of Railway employment generally.

Protecting his current monetary pay did not necessarily preserve his pay scale, status, promotion prospects or service benefits, so the Level-1 offer could not by itself satisfy Section 20(4).

The vacancy statement did not automatically entitle him to the Senior Clerk post, since his qualifications, medical suitability and applicable recruitment conditions remained to be assessed.

However, the respondents had not shown that the Level-5 vacancies, or other suitable same-scale posts, had been properly considered before making the lower-level offer.

It directed the respondents to reconsider him for a suitable post carrying the same pay scale and service benefits as his former Level-5 post, specifically considering the Senior Clerk vacancies and other suitable posts, subject to applicable qualifications and conditions.

Pending that exercise, he could not be compelled to accept the Level-1 post; if no suitable same-scale post was immediately available, he was to receive the protection of a supernumerary post under Section 20(4) and the Railway provisions.

The reconsideration was to be completed by a reasoned order within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.