In a significant victory for persons with benchmark disabilities, the Supreme Court of India in P.C. Maya & Others v/s The State of Kerala & Another., has overturned judgments by the Kerala High Court, ruling that physically disabled individuals, whose services were regularized against supernumerary posts, are entitled to full service benefits, including seniority, declaration of probation, and promotion. This decision affects a group of appellants who were initially appointed on a temporary basis and later reappointed on a regular basis by the State Government of Kerala.
Background of the Case:
The appellants in these Civil Appeals are persons with benchmark disabilities, each having a physical disability exceeding 40%. They were initially engaged in various public institutions in Kerala through temporary appointments under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days.
In a move to regularize their services, the State Government of Kerala issued a Government Order (G.O.) dated May 18, 2013. This G.O. resolved to regularize the services of 2,677 physically disabled persons who had been temporarily engaged between August 16, 1999, and December 31, 2003, by creating supernumerary posts solely for their absorption. The G.O. stipulated that these supernumerary posts would cease to exist upon the retirement of the incumbents.
Following this G.O., the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis in their respective departments. However, a subsequent G.O. dated February 3, 2016, introduced a major setback. This new order declared that reappointed persons would not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion.
The Legal Challenge and High Court's Stance:
Feeling aggrieved by these restrictions, the appellants pursued legal remedies. In several instances, single benches of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ruled in their favor, asserting that the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, was discriminatory and violated principles of equality. They emphasized that once a person is regularly appointed, they should be treated on par with their counterparts.
However, Division Benches of the Kerala High Court subsequently reversed these judgments, upholding the restrictive provisions of the G.O. dated February 3, 2016. The Division Benches often reasoned that the appointments against supernumerary posts were a "policy concession" and therefore, benefits like promotion and seniority could not be claimed as a matter of right. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Appellants' Arguments Before the Supreme Court:
The senior counsel for the appellants argued that the initial G.O. dated May 18, 2013, and the subsequent appointment orders did not contain any stipulation denying them promotion or other service benefits. They highlighted that many appellants had already been included in seniority lists and had their probation declared. The G.O. of February 3, 2016, was issued after they had completed significant periods of satisfactory service, effectively withdrawing benefits already conferred.
A crucial point raised was that some appellants had resigned from existing regular government services based on the expectation of being treated as regular employees upon reappointment under the May 18, 2013 G.O.
Furthermore, the appellants contended that denying these benefits negated the constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16 (equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment) and went against the spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act), which provides for reservation for persons with disabilities.
Respondents' Counter-Arguments:
The senior counsel for the State of Kerala argued that the May 18, 2013 G.O. was intended as a "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities, and no further competitive procedures were applied for the beneficiaries. They also pointed out that the G.O. itself stated that the supernumerary posts would be cancelled upon the employees' retirement, implying a special nature of these appointments.
It was further contended that extending benefits like promotion would set an unfair precedent and disrupt the rights of regularly appointed employees, and that the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, was merely a "corrective" measure.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the G.O. dated May 18, 2013. The Court emphasized that this G.O. clearly stated that "detailed guidelines regarding the regular appointment of the said employees shall be issued later," indicating an intention to grant permanency to these persons with disabilities.
The Court also noted that the appointment orders issued to the appellants in some cases explicitly mentioned that the appointment was "on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years," which is characteristic of regular employment.
The Supreme Court found that the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, sought to withdraw benefits that were inherently conferred by the G.O. dated May 18, 2013. It highlighted that many appellants had altered their positions based on the promise of regular employment under the earlier G.O. The Court concluded that the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, was discriminatory and irrational, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and restored the judgments of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. This landmark decision ensures that the appellants will receive full service benefits, including seniority, declaration of probation, and promotion, aligning their rights with those of other regular employees.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016
