Keywords: Paralysis, Section 20 2016 act, disability
According to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court in Shakuntala Devi v. State of UP and 2 Others, an employee who is paralyzed and unable to work is entitled to full compensation while on medical leave.
Judge Ajit Kumar noted that the State government’s decision to withhold an employee’s pay during the time he was on medical leave following a paralysis diagnosis was overturned. The Court further noted that several elements of the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act were broken by this ruling.In the event that the petitioner’s spouse (the employee) experienced paralysis and was unable to work due to his physical condition, the Court ruled that the spouse was entitled to protection from the State, which is supposed to serve as an example employer. Specifically, the spouse was entitled to payment for the time he was unable to work due to his paralysis. The employee’s wife (the petitioner) submitted a petition, and the court decided her case.
Before passing away in 2020 from paralysis, the petitioner’s husband was employed as an orderly in the Joint Inspector General of Registration’s office.After the worker passed away, his widow filed pension and other related paperwork with the relevant authorities. When the petitioner was unable to obtain this sum in full, they turned to the High Court for assistance.
The state’s refusal to compensate the employee’s family was criticized by the High Court, which also said that it was appalling and rather dismal to think of how the family managed to subsist on just one rupee while he was lying on a bed paralyzed.The court further stated that it is astonishing to learn how the administrative authority ignored the employee’s family situation and continued to be a silent bystander to his suffering. The State government treated the petitioner’s husband’s 967 days of absence due to paralysis as an extraordinary leave period without pay, despite the fact that some of the dues were released while the case was still pending. The Court had objected to this treatment.In its defence, the State said that the decision was made in compliance with the relevant guidelines found in the State’s Financial Handbook.
The Court dismissed the argument, stating that the regulations would be superseded by the Central law known as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.The court further stated that it could not find any reason for the respondents to have failed to act in accordance with the provisions found in Act No. 49 of 2016, a piece of parliamentary legislation that provides protection to disabled individuals, including those who develop a disability while serving. The Court also pointed out that Section 20 of the 2016 Act made it very evident that discrimination against people with disabilities is not permitted in matters of employment. The Court noted that a person with paralysis would be included in the group of people with disabilities specified in the Act. Despite parliamentary legislation, I believe that the respondents completely, illegally, and arbitrarily applied the Financial Hand Book principle to deny pay protection to an employee who became paralyzed while working for the respondents, gradually became more than 80% disabled, and ultimately passed away while still employed.
The petitioner (the employee’s wife) was ordered to receive the arrears payment by the court after the plea was accepted. The Court further ordered that the petitioner receive eight percent interest on the amount since she was forced to run from pillar to post without a valid reason. In addition, the State government was ordered to pay ₹25,000 by the Court.Attorney Surya Bhan Singh was the petitioner’s representative.
References:
Anushka Shukla, Faculty of Law, University Of Lucknow, Intern At Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
