HC holds 1997 termination of disabled employee a ‘nullity’, restores full pensionary benefits

In a significant disability-rights ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an electricity board employee’s termination in 1997 after he suffered a 70 per cent disability in an on-duty accident was “a nullity in law” and ordered his entire service – from 1974 to 2015 – should be deemed as continuous without any break.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that employee Deep Chand accepted the peon’s post after the termination of his services out of necessity as he was “facing destitution after a catastrophic accident”. It was “not a waiver of his legal rights”. The assertion came as the Bench directed the release of all service benefits including seniority, promotion and other monetary benefits.

Taking up his petition against Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and other respondents, Justice Brar ruled that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act erected a “formidable barrier” against dispensing with the services of an employee who acquired a disability, and the Haryana power utility was under a mandatory duty to protect his pay, post and continuity of service.

“The provision erects a formidable barrier against the dispensation of or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service, casting an obligation upon the employer to protect such an employee,” Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench observed that the petitioner joined HSEB as work-charge T-Mate in 1974 and was regularized as ALM in 1982. But he suffered 70 per cent disability in 1997 following severe electric shock and his services were terminated in 1997. The respondent-Nigam’s stand in the matter was that the petitioner accepted fresh appointment as a peon without demur and without challenging the termination order for over two decades. As such, he was barred by delay and laches and “estopped” from raising this claim. Moreover, a terminated employee was not entitled to pension.

The court asserted the employer must shift employee to an alternative post with the same pay scale and service benefits if he became unsuitable for current post due to a disability. “The act of terminating the services of an employee who has incurred a disability in the course of duty and then treating their subsequent employment as a fresh appointment, thereby severing the past service for pensionary benefits, is not only a gross misapplication of service rules but a complete subversion of the protective envelope of Section 47,” Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench added the respondents were mandated to protect the petitioner by shifting him to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Rejecting the Nigam’s plea that the employee accepted the peon’s post “without demur”, the court asserted that statutory rights under a beneficial legislation could not be forfeited by “the compelling circumstances of his distress”. It added that the rules relied upon by the utility were irrelevant since the very termination was void.

The Bench also found no justification for the eight-month delay in releasing retirement dues or for deducting Rs 11,772 without notice. Quashing the 2018 order rejecting his claim, the court directed the Nigam to treat the employee’s service as continuous, release all consequential monetary and promotional benefits, refund the deducted amount with 6 per cent interest, and pay 6 per cent interest on the delayed retirement dues from April 30, 2015. The directions were ordered to be complied with within eight weeks.