Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Supreme Court Terms Government Order Withdrawing Benefit Of Earlier Order Regularizing Services Of Physically Disabled Persons As Discriminatory
|The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by persons with benchmark disabilities, each with a physical disability exceeding 40%.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Government Order issued in 2016 withdrawing the benefit of an earlier order of 2013 whereby the services of physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts were asked to be regularized. The Apex Court also termed the 2016 order as discriminatory, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by persons with benchmark disabilities, each with a physical disability exceeding 40%. They were engaged in various public institutions in the State of Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR).
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “The G.O. dated 18th May, 2013, is to ensure that the persons with disability appointed through the employment exchange in a particular post should be regularly appointed. Therefore, all of them were appointed on probation. Now, by the subsequent G.O. dated 3rd February 2016, what is conferred on the appellants by the G.O. dated 18th May 2013 cannot be withdrawn. Moreover, many appellants based on the G.O. dated 18th May 2013 changed their position and opted for other employment for securing the benefits under the G.O. The G.O. contemplates regular appointments to be given. Clause 3.5 of the G.O. dated 3rd February, 2016 seeks to withdraw what is specifically conferred by the G.O. dated 18th May 2013. Hence, the G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 is discriminatory and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Naveen R. Nath represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
By a Government Order (G.O.) dated May 18, 2013, the State Government of Kerala (first respondent) resolved to regularize the services of 2,677 physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts, who had been engaged temporarily through employment exchange under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS & SSR between August 16, 1999 and December 31, 2003. According to the said G.O., the appellants were to be reappointed to supernumerary posts created solely for their absorption. The said G.O. further stipulated that such supernumerary posts would stand abolished upon the retirement of the incumbents. Pursuant to the above G.O., the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis in their respective departments. However, by a subsequent G.O. dated February 3, 2016, it was declared that such reappointed persons shall not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion.
Some of the appellants were appointed as Assistants in Mahatma Gandhi University (second respondent), through employment exchange for 179 days and pursuant to G.O. they were reappointed. However, following the 2016 G.O., their names were excluded from the combined seniority list, and they were denied the benefit of promotion. One of the appellants was appointed as LDC in the Civil Supplies Department under the 2013 G.O. Despite his inclusion in the provisional seniority list, he was excluded from the final list given the restrictions contained in the 2016 G.O. There were other appellants aggrieved by the 2016 G.O.
When the matter reached the High Court, the Division Bench upheld the provisions of the 2016 GO, thereby prompting the appellants to approach the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the 2013 G.O., the Bench observed that the intention was to give regular appointments to those persons with disability who were working on temporary posts through the employment exchange and grant permanency to those persons with disability.
The Bench further noted that many appellants based on the 2013 G.O. changed their position and opted for other employment for securing the benefits under the G.O. However, the 2016 G.O. sought to withdraw what was specifically conferred by the 2013 and hence was discriminatory in nature.
Thus, the Bench set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, restored the judgment of the Single Bench and allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Maya P.C. & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 773)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Raghenth Basant, Jayanth Muthu Raj, Advocates Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Akshat Gogna, AOR M/S. KMNP Law, AOR Rashmi Nandakumar, Advocates Yashmita Pandey, Kaushitaki Sharma, Jaimon Andrews, Piyo Harold Jaimon, Firdouse C P, AOR Naresh Kumar, AOR Himinder Lal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Naveen R. Nath, AOR C. K. Sasi, Advocates Meena K Poulose, Gayatri Virkmani, Gayatri Virmani, Disha Gupta, AOR Sakshi Kakkar, Advocate Shakti Singh, AOR Vipin Nair, Advocates Mohd Aman Alam, Aditya Narendranath, M.B.Ramya, Deeksha Gupta