- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was employed as a Sub-Station Attendant in the pay scale of Rs 1400-2300. Following surgery on 13 February 1984 for chondrosarcoma, his right arm was amputated. A medical letter dated 3 May 1985 stated he could resume normal duties using his left arm. Instead, the respondent State Electricity Board re-employed him as a Carrier Attendant on a lower pay scale of Rs 825-1300. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine on 10 October 1990. He then approached the Supreme Court by special leave.
On 24 September 1993 the Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a three-member Medical Board, assisted by two engineers, to assess whether the appellant could perform duties of a Sub-Station Attendant or an equivalent technical post. The Board reported on 19 October 1993 that he could not safely operate the equipment. The present judgment resolves the appellant’s challenge to his downgraded placement and seeks suitable rehabilitation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the loss of his right arm, the appellant remains fit to discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any equivalent technical post in the same pay scale.
- If unfit for technical duties, whether the respondent Board is obliged, under Article 21 of the Constitution, to provide the appellant with alternative employment on equivalent remuneration.
- Whether the appellant, being only a matriculate, can be directed to be appointed as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) or another clerical post with equal pay.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Medical Board’s assessment was flawed because he had prior experience only on 33 KV installations and was not given practice on 66 KV equipment.
- His advocate was not allowed to be present during the evaluation, allegedly undermining fairness.
- He should be appointed directly as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) carrying a pay scale equal to his original post.
Respondent Board's Arguments
- The Medical Board, assisted by engineers, impartially found the appellant unfit for Sub-Station Attendant duties and similar technical posts.
- Appointment as UDC requires graduation or an equivalent higher qualification; the appellant is only a matriculate and therefore ineligible.
- The post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) is open to matriculates but ordinarily requires passing a typing test.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first rejected the appellant’s allegations of bias against the Medical Board, emphasizing that the Board comprised impartial professionals with no interest adverse to him. Accepting the Board’s findings, the Court held that requiring the appellant to handle high-voltage equipment would endanger both him and the installations, making his reinstatement to technical posts untenable.
Turning to rehabilitation, the Court invoked Article 21, recognising livelihood as an integral part of the right to life. It held that an employer must make every effort to adjust an employee who becomes disabled. However, such adjustment must respect objective service requirements. Because appointment as UDC is filled through promotion and direct recruitment (75%–25%) and mandates graduation, the Court found no legal basis to compel the Board to place the matriculate appellant in that cadre.
The Court noted that the appellant meets the educational criterion for Lower Division Clerk and, given the exceptional circumstances, relaxed the usual typing-test requirement. To make the rehabilitation meaningful, it directed protection of his last-drawn pay scale of Rs 1400-2300 and the payment of all consequential arrears.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The respondent State Electricity Board must:
- Appoint the appellant as a Lower Division Clerk, waiving the typing-test requirement;
- Protect his existing pay scale of Rs 1400-2300; and
- Disburse all arrears of salary due at that scale.
Implications: While the judgment sets no new precedent on service jurisprudence, it reinforces the constitutional obligation of employers—especially public bodies—to accommodate disabled employees through suitable alternative employment on terms that preserve their livelihood.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. The appellant while working as a Sub-Station Attendant in the pay scale of Rs 1400-2300, unfortunately had to be operated on February 13, 1984 for Chondrosarcoma and ever since he was treated in Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay up to March 18, 1985 and thereafter he was discharged and his right arm was completely amputated due to the said Sarcoma. It is a cancer affect but it was arrested. The Doctor in his letter dated May 3, 1985 recommended that he can assume his normal duties. The bone of his right arm is completely missing. He shall work properly with his left arm. Subsequently, the respondents have absorbed him as Carrier Attendant in the pay scale of Rs 825-1300. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant approached the High Court and the High Court in the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on October 10, 1990 in limine. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. On September 24, 1993, we directed the State Electricity Board, hereafter the ‘Board’, to constitute three members' Board of Doctors to examine the appellant whether he can discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post carrying the pay scale of Rs 1400-2300. We had also directed to associate any Engineer of the rank of Executive Engineer working in the office of the respondents to assist the Medical Board in giving proper advice to the Board to come to its conclusion on the point noted above. The three members' Board was accordingly constituted and the Chief Medical Officer in his letter dated October 19, 1993 has submitted the report of the three members' Board. They have stated that two Engineers assisted them. They had taken the appellant to 66 KV Sub-Station at Panchkula to assess his capability in the operation of some installations. The report states: “He was unable to align the trolley let alone take it in position. He also failed to raise it and had a great difficulty in lowering it. He was then taken to switch yard and was asked to operate the Isolator which he could not perform efficiently. The Medical Board feels that such handling of equipment can be risky not only to the installations but even to the person himself and as such the appellant cannot perform the duties of Sub-Station Attendant.”
4. The Medical Board also attempted to find whether he can be posted as Sub-Station A.F.M, Foreman, Grade III, Chargeman, Rigger, Crane Driver, Welder, etc. It recommended that the duties to those posts are similar to the Sub-Station Attendant. Under these circumstances, the Medical Board felt that the appellant who failed to perform his duties as Sub-Station Attendant cannot also discharge the duties of alternative posts as mentioned above. They have also stated that the appellant has been able to write English and Hindi with his left hand and if the Board feels, he can be considered for clerical or non-technical post subject to his meeting educational administrative requirements of the Board.
5. In the objections filed by the appellant he mentioned that he was performing the duties in 33 KV and that there is no prior practice given to him for handling 66 KV and his advocate was not permitted to attend at the time when he was examined thereby sought to make some allegations against the Medical Board. We pay no heed, nor countenance such unwarranted allegations against an impartial Board which has no axe to grind against the appellant. The Medical Board sympathetically considered the appellant's capability pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Therefore, he may not be justified in making such allegations against the Board. Suffice to state that in view of the findings given by the Medical Board assisted by the Engineers, we do not think that we can direct the Board to give suitable post to absorb the appellant either as Sub-Station Attendant or any equivalent post on the technical side.
6. However, we have considered the material placed before us by the respondents relating to qualifications etc., for working on the clerical or non-technical side as suggested by the Medical Board. Though, Shri M.C Bhandare, learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue for directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as UDC which carry equal pay scale, we think that we cannot give such directions. The reasons are that there are two channels of appointment to the post of UDC. One is promotion and another is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed at 75% and 25%. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification required apart from other requirements mentioned therein. Admittedly, the appellant is not possessed of the qualifications. He is only matriculate. As a result we cannot give any direction to appoint him as UDC.
7. Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. Asking the appellant to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a matriculate, he is eligible for the post of LDC. For LDC, apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as an LDC. Admittedly on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs 1400-2300. Necessarily, therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been rehabilitated in the post of LDC we direct the respondent to appoint him to the post of LDC protecting his scale of pay of Rs 1400-2300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Alert