VISUALLY CHALLENGED PERSON – DIRECTION ISSUED TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT AS PER THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT,2016

VISUALLY CHALLENGED PERSON – DIRECTION ISSUED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT AS PER THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT,2016. High Court has granted relief to a Police who was discharged from service after acquiring 100% blindness during service and being declared medically unfit for service. High Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued direction to reinstate the Petitioner into service and provide all benefits. (Ganesan Vs The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police – 2025 Live Law (Mad) Page 22). Published and Reported in https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/ganesan-v-the-commandant-wpmdno26560-of-2024-reinstatement-of-visually-impaired-cop-alternative-employment-1565795. The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a visually impaired Policeman who was working as a Nayak in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force by ordering his reinstatement after noting that he had acquired the disability while he was performing his duty. The Writ Petition before the Madras High Court was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Nayak working in Tamil Nadu Special Police Force 11th Battalion, Mottamalai Camp, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, challenging the order passed by the respondent wherein, he was declared as medically unfit for service and was discharged from his duties. The Single-Judge Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar said, “As per Section 20(4) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, the Government establishment cannot dispense with the services of an employee who had acquired disability during his service.” Also Read - Madras High Court: When Action Becomes Barred By Time, Court Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay As Other Party Matures His Rights On Subject With... Advocate R. Karunanidhi represented the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader D.Sasikumar represented the Respondent. Factual Background The writ petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in 2010 at 13th Battalion, Poonthamalli, Chennai. While he was on election duty, he met with an accident and sustained injuries in his head and eyes. After the accident, the writ petitioner's eyesight was not good and he could not perform his regular duties as a Police Officer. He was assigned light duty considering his health status. He had been discharging the same for the past 10 years. The writ petitioner was promoted as a Nayak. When the Petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, it was certified that the writ petitioner had completely lost his vision. Pursuant to the said certificate, the impugned order was passed declaring him medically unfit for service. He was also discharged from the post and asked to vacate the quarters and hand over the keys. This order was challenged in the Petition filed before the High Court. Also Read - Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 13 Of Family Courts Act Which Restricts Right Of Legal Practitioners Reasoning The Bench explained that 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. However, no such notification was placed before the Court, exempting the Police Department from the purview of Section 20 of the said Act. Therefore, this Section was held to be applicable to the uniformed services also. “In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioner has acquired disability while he is in service. Even though the writ petitioner may be found to be medically unfit for policing, in the view of Section 20(4) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, the writ petitioner has to be provided with other alternative employment with pay protection”, the Bench said. Also Read - Big Racket Involved In Creating Bogus Community Certificates: Madras High Court Asks State To Launch Criminal Prosecution Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act and reinstate the writ petitioner in service with continuity of service and pay protection. The Bench also directed that alternative light duty be provided to the writ petitioner. Cause Title: Ganesan v. The Commandant (Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.26560 of 2024) Appearance: Petitioner: Advocate R. Karunanidhi Respondent: Additional Government Pleader D. Sasikumar https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/ganesan-v-the-commandant-wpmdno26560-of-2024-reinstatement-of-visually-impaired-cop-alternative-employment-1565795