Kerala HC: Differently-Abled Employees Shouldn’t Suffer Due to Lack of Infrastructure

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court emphasized that government employees with disabilities cannot be penalized for infrastructural shortcomings in public offices. The bench, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John, stated that it is the government's responsibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to ensure public spaces are accessible to all, including persons with disabilities.

The Case of T. Rajeev

The matter was brought to the Court by T. Rajeev, a Senior Grade Typist in the Motor Vehicle Department, who has 60% locomotor disability resulting from post-polio paralysis. Due to the inaccessibility of his office, which was located on an upper floor, Rajeev requested an inter-departmental transfer to the Irrigation Department located on the ground floor of the same building. He also sought to retain his pay scale during the transfer.

Despite multiple rounds of litigation, while the government eventually approved his transfer, they did so by reappointing him as a Lower Division (LD) Typist—resulting in a reduced salary.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that differently-abled government employees cannot be made to bear the brunt of the government’s failure to create accessible infrastructure. The Court stated:

“A government servant cannot be forced to perform duties that are physically beyond their ability due to disability. Inaccessibility in a public building cannot be held against the employee.”

The Court cited Sections 3, 20, and 45 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, highlighting the government's obligation to prevent discrimination, ensure reasonable accommodation, and make public places inclusive.

Tribunal Proceedings and High Court’s Verdict

Earlier, Rajeev had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking cancellation of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and requesting a suitable posting. The Tribunal had quashed the disciplinary action and directed authorities to consider his transfer request in line with the Disabilities Act.

Despite this, the government initially rejected his request, citing existing service rules and denied pay protection. Rajeev filed a contempt petition. Before it could be adjudicated, the transfer was approved, but without salary protection. This prompted Rajeev to return to the Tribunal, which ruled in his favor and reinstated his Senior Grade Typist salary.

Challenging this order, the State filed a petition in the High Court.

The High Court held that Rajeev had independently proposed a solution where the government had failed. The justices criticized the authorities for not fulfilling their legal obligation and asserted that Rajeev was entitled to retain his prior salary.

The Court concluded that if the government is unwilling to protect his salary in the new post, it must repatriate Rajeev to the Motor Vehicle Department but cannot require him to perform duties requiring access to an upper floor. The Court also ordered the state to pass the necessary orders within one month and pay Rajeev the Senior Grade Typist’s salary in the meantime.

Legal Representation

• Petitioners’ Counsel: Adv. A.J. Varghese (Senior Government Pleader)

• Respondents’ Counsel: M.A. Vaheeda Babu, Babu Karukapadath, P.K. Abdul Rahiman, Arya Raghunath, Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P. Lakshmi, Aysha E.M., Hashim K.M., Manu Krishna S.K., Abusail A.K., Haniya Nafiza V.S., M.I. Insaf Mooppan, and Rishi Vincent

Case Details:

• Case No: OP (KAT) 51/2025

• Title: State of Kerala & Others v. T. Rajeev