news details |
|
|
| Minimum Medical Standards Must Even for Disabled Employees | | | AGENCIES
NEW DELHI, JULY 12: Minimum medical standards prescribed for a post or promotion has to be fulfilled by a person even if he or she is suffering from physical disability as the same is essential for safety, security and efficient functioning of an organisation, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Where disability is likely to affect safety, security or efficiency, then the minimum standards prescribed cannot be considered as denying a differently abled person his promotion merely on the ground of his condition, the court said.
According to the apex court, such stipulations cannot be considered as violative of the provisions contained in the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
A Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by the Union Government challenging an Allahabad High Court order which had ruled that the minimum medical standards prescribed for a normal employee cannot be insisted for a person suffering with certain disabilities.
"The intention of the Act is not to jeopardise the safety and security of the public, co-employees, or the employee himself or the safety and security of the equipment or assets of the employer nor to accept reduced standards of safety and efficiency merely because the employee suffers from a disability," the Bench observed.
The High Court had taken the view while hearing the case of Devendra Kumar Pant who challenged the Railways' insistence on producing certain fitness certificate at the time of his promotion to the post of Chief Research Assistant, Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO).
According to Pandey, the insistence on such a fitness certificate which required him to prove his "colour perception" was violative of Section 47(2) of the Disabilities Act. The said provision mandated that "no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability".
Interpreting the Act, the apex court said Section 47(2) does not provide that even if the disability comes in the way of performance of higher duties and functions associated with the promotional post, promotion shall not be denied.
"Section 47(2) bars promotion being denied to a person on the ground of disability, only if the disability does not affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of a promotional post.
"Where the employer stipulates minimum standards for promotion keeping in view safety, security and efficiency, and if the employee is unable to meet the higher minimum standards on account of any disability or failure to posses the minimum standards, then Section 47(2) will not be attracted, nor can it be pressed into service for seeking promotion," the Bench observed.
The apex court said the intention of the Act is to give a helping hand to persons with disability so that they can lead a self-reliant life with dignity and freedom.
Giving an illustration, the apex court said an advertisement for the post of a police inspector would prescribe a minimum height or a minimum chest measurements or a minimum physical stamina.
"A person who lacks the same and therefore denied appointment, cannot contend that he is discriminated on the ground of physical disability. Firstly, being short or very thin or lacking stamina is not a physical disability but a physical characteristic.
"Therefore in such a situation, the question of applicability of the Act does not arise at all. If a person not having a colour perception is denied appointment to the post of a driver, he cannot complain that he is discriminated on the ground of his disability.
"Same would be the position where colour perception is a required minimum standard for a particular post," the apex court added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
