Disabled Employees' Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Kerala Government Order.


23 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

In a significant ruling of Maya P.C. & Others v/s The State of Kerala & Another, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a discriminatory Government Order (G.O.) issued by the State of Kerala, which had denied promotion, seniority, and probation benefits to persons with benchmark disabilities reappointed to supernumerary posts. The apex court's decision, delivered in a batch of Civil Appeals, restores the rights of these employees, emphasizing principles of equality and non-discrimination.

The case revolved around a group of appellants, all individuals with physical disabilities exceeding 40%, who were initially engaged in various public institutions in Kerala on a temporary basis under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.

In a move aimed at regularizing their services, the State Government of Kerala issued a G.O. on May 18, 2013, resolving to regularize the services of 2,677 physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts. These individuals had been temporarily engaged through employment exchanges between August 16, 1999, and December 31, 2003. The G.O. stipulated that these supernumerary posts would cease to exist upon the retirement of the incumbents. Pursuant to this, the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis in their respective departments.

 
 

However, a subsequent G.O. dated February 3, 2016, introduced a significant setback. This G.O. declared that those reappointed under the May 18, 2013 G.O. would not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion. This led the aggrieved appellants to seek legal recourse.

The Appeals and High Court Rulings:

The batch of Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court included cases stemming from common judgments of the Kerala High Court. For instance, in Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024, appellants appointed as Assistants in Mahatma Gandhi University had their names excluded from the combined seniority list and were denied promotion following the February 2016 G.O. While a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court initially ruled in their favor, the Division Bench reversed this decision, upholding the provisions of the restrictive G.O.

Similar scenarios unfolded in other appeals. Civil Appeal No. 14916-14917 of 2024 involved an appellant who resigned from a regular post to rejoin the Kerala Public Service Commission as an Assistant on a supernumerary post, only to be denied probation declaration and seniority. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal ruled in her favor, but the High Court's Division Bench again reversed the decision, terming the appointment a "policy concession."

Civil Appeal No. 14918 of 2024 saw an appellant, an LDC in the Civil Supplies Department, excluded from the final seniority list despite clearing probation and departmental tests. The Tribunal granted him full service benefits, which the High Court's Division Bench subsequently set aside.

Most strikingly, in Civil Appeal No. 14919 of 2024, an appellant who had even been promoted to Grade I Technician (Prosthetics) had his promotion and regularisation cancelled, citing the February 2016 G.O. The Tribunal had ruled in his favor, finding the restrictions discriminatory and contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, but the High Court again overturned this, relying on its previous judgments.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court:

Learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that neither the May 2013 G.O. nor their appointment orders stipulated any denial of promotion or other service benefits. They highlighted that in many cases, probation had been declared and individuals were included in seniority lists, making the February 2016 G.O. a discriminatory withdrawal of conferred benefits. It was also pointed out that some appellants had voluntarily resigned from regular government service, expecting to be treated as regular employees. Furthermore, they contended that denying these benefits negated constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16 and was contrary to the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the 1995 Act) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act).

Conversely, the learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala argued that the May 2013 G.O. was a "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities, and no further competitive procedures were applied. They asserted that the G.O. already provided benefits like salary, increments, pension, and leave, and extending promotion would set an "unfair precedent." They characterized the February 2016 G.O. as "corrective in nature."

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the May 18, 2013 G.O., noting that it explicitly authorized the creation of supernumerary posts for "regular appointment" of disabled persons who had completed 179 days of service. Crucially, the G.O. stated that "detailed guidelines regarding the 'regular appointment' of the said employees shall be issued later," clearly indicating an intention to grant permanency.

The Court observed that the re-appointment orders for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024 specifically mentioned appointment on probation for a period of one year, reinforcing the notion of regular employment.

The apex court found that the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, by restricting seniority, completion of probation, and eligibility for promotion, effectively withdrew benefits that had been conferred by the earlier May 2013 G.O. 

The Court emphasized that many appellants had altered their career paths based on the expectation of regular employment derived from the initial G.O.

Concluding its assessment, the Supreme Court declared the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, "discriminatory and irrational" and therefore "violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Consequently, the Supreme Court issued the following order:

  • The impugned judgments of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court were set aside.
  • The judgments of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which had been reversed by the Division Bench, were restored.
  • All the appeals were allowed.

This landmark judgment reaffirms the rights of persons with disabilities to equal treatment and opportunity in public employment, sending a clear message against discriminatory practices that undermine the very purpose of affirmative action.