Provision Of Alternate Employment Applicable To Police Force Unless Exempted By State: Madras HC Grants Relief To Visually Impaired Nayak

As per Section 20 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, there cannot be any discrimination against any employee on the grounds of his disability and he should be given a conducive environment of work, even shifting to another post with the same benefits if he cannot continue in the post he was holding.

As per Section 20(1) of the Act, no government establishment shall discriminate against any person with a disability in any matter relating to employment. However, the proviso to the Section says that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, exempt the establishment from the provisions of the section.

Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench observed that though the proviso to Section 20(1) empowered the Government to exempt any establishment from the requirements of the Act, no such notification had been made exempting the Police Department. Thus, the court noted that the provision would be applicable to the uniformed service also and thus directed the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force to reinstate the workman.

“The proviso to Section 20(1) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 empowers the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment by way of notification from the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act. However, no such notification has been placed before this Court, exempting the Police Department from the purview of Section 20 of the said Act. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the above said Section is applicable to the uniformed services also,” the court said.

The court made the observations on a plea filed by Ganesan challenging the order of the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Force by which he was declared medically unfit for service. Ganesan was appointed as a Police Constable in April 2010 at the 13^th Battalion, Poonthamalli, Chennai. While on election duty, Ganesan met with an accident, sustaining injuries in his head and eyes.

After the accident, Ganesan's eyesight was not good and he could not perform his regular duties as a Police Officer and was assigned light duty on March 2013. Ganesan was also promoted to Nayak in March 2014. While so, the Medical Board certified that he was 100% visually impaired. Ganesan was referred to another Medical Board which also certified that he had completely lost his vision. Thus, the discharge order was passed against him.

Ganesan argued that he was entitled to benefits under Section 20(4) of the Act and be provided with alternative employment with pay protection will his superannuation.

On the other hand, the Police force argued that the benefits could not be granted in the present case since Ganesan was a member of the uniformed service and could not be provided with any alternative employment other than policing. It was contended that since Ganesan was appointed exclusively for the purpose of policing, no alternative light duty could be granted to him.

The court was however not inclined to support this argument. The court observed that though Ganesan was found medically unfit for policing, as per Section 20(4) of the Act, he had to be provided other alternative employment with pay protection.

The court thus quashed the impugned order and directed Ganesan to be reinstated in service with continuity in service and pay protection within 12 weeks of the order.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Karunanidhi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D. Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.26560 of 2024