{"id":355467,"date":"2025-08-03T11:00:06","date_gmt":"2025-08-03T05:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355467"},"modified":"2025-08-05T18:01:00","modified_gmt":"2025-08-05T12:31:00","slug":"supreme-court-orders-tsrtc-redeploy-colour-blind-employee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/03\/supreme-court-orders-tsrtc-redeploy-colour-blind-employee\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Employer\u2019s discretion ends where employee\u2019s dignity begins\u2019; Supreme Court directs TSRTC to redeploy colour-blind employee"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The instant appeal challenged the decision by Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court for State Telangana, whereby it had set aside the direction to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to provide the appellant, who is colour blind, with an alternative employment. The Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar*<\/span>, JJ., allowed the appeal by holding that the Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment. This action was taken in disregard of Clause 14 of the binding Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-12-1979 and without adherence to principles of fairness or accommodation and is therefore, unsustainable in law.<\/p>\n

The duty of a public employer is not merely to discharge functionaries, but to preserve human potential where it continues to exist. The law does not permit the severance of service by the stroke of a medical certificate without first exhausting the possibility of meaningful redeployment. Such obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation<\/span>. The Court said that when an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored; the Court is not crossing a line by intervening as it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself. \u201cThe employer\u2019s discretion ends where the employee\u2019s dignity begins\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

Appellant herein was selected and appointed as a \u2018driver\u2019 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (\u201cAPSRTC\u201d \u2014i.e., the predecessor-in-title TSRTC) on 01-05-2014, after fulfilling the eligibility criteria fixed for the post. On a periodical medical examination conducted by the medical officer of the dispensary belonging to the corporation, it was found that the appellant was \u2018colour blind\u2019 and was declared unfit to hold the post of \u2018driver\u2019.<\/p>\n

The appellant preferred an appeal challenging the observation regarding his fitness for the post of \u2018driver\u2019, alternatively, the appellant also sought for alternate employment in the event, he was declared \u2018medically unfit\u2019. However, the appellant\u2019s efforts met with disappointment. The appellant\u2019s representation seeking alternate employment came to be rejected by the corporation on the ground that extant rules do not provide for granting alternate employment to colour blind drivers. The Corporation<\/span>, vide order dated 27-01-2016, passed an order retiring the appellant w.e.f. 06-01-2016<\/span> and directed him to avail the additional monetary benefits provided under the policy governing the same.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the decision, the appellant approached the High Court and sought for a direction to the corporation to provide him alternate employment contending his disability falls under the category of disablement under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995<\/a> (the Act) and therefore, he cannot be discriminated. The Single Judge Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the category of \u2018colour also falls within the category of disablement within the provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n

The Corporation challenged the single Judge Bench\u2019s decision before the High Court\u2019s Division Bench, which thereby relying on APSRTC v. B.S. Reddy<\/span>, (2018) 12 SCC 704<\/a>, set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the appellant to make a representation to the corporation seeking the benefit as prescribed under the regulations and the scheme governing the corporation.<\/p>\n

Issues Framed:<\/h3>\n

Perusing the facts of the case and contentions raised by the parties, the Court formulated the following issues:<\/p>\n