Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a batch of civil appeals filed by persons with benchmark disabilities (physical disability exceeding 40%) who were initially engaged temporarily under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR) for a period not exceeding 179 days. By a Government Order (G.O.) dated 18th May 2013, the State of Kerala resolved to regularise the services of 2,677 such persons against supernumerary posts, and the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis. However, a subsequent G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 declared that such reappointed persons shall not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion. The appellants challenged this G.O. before the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. In Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024, the appellants were appointed as Assistants in Mahatma Gandhi University; the Single Judge allowed their writ petition, but the Division Bench reversed. In Civil Appeal Nos. 14916-14917 of 2024, the appellant resigned from a regular post at CPCRI to join KPSC under the G.O.; the tribunal allowed her claim, but the Division Bench reversed. In Civil Appeal No. 14918 of 2024, the appellant was appointed as LDC in the Civil Supplies Department; the tribunal allowed his claim, but the Division Bench reversed. In Civil Appeal No. 14919 of 2024, the appellant was promoted to Grade I Technician, but the Health Department cancelled his promotion; the tribunal set aside the cancellation, but the Division Bench reversed relying on the common judgment. The legal issues were whether the denial of probation, seniority, and promotion to persons with disabilities regularised against supernumerary posts violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The appellants argued that the G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 was issued after they had completed satisfactory service and that some had resigned from regular posts in expectation of regular treatment. The respondents contended that the appointments were a policy concession and that the benefits already included salary, increments, pension, etc. The Supreme Court held that the denial of service benefits was discriminatory and contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality and the spirit of the disability laws. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench, and directed the respondents to grant the appellants all consequential benefits including probation, seniority, and promotion.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality - Articles 14 and 16 - Denial of Service Benefits - Persons with benchmark disabilities regularised and reappointed against supernumerary posts under G.O. dated 18.05.2013 were subsequently denied probation, seniority, and promotion by G.O. dated 03.02.2016 - Held that such denial is discriminatory and violates the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16, as the appellants were entitled to equal treatment with other regular employees once their appointments were regularised (Paras 1-16). B) Disability Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 33 - Reservation and Service Benefits - The G.O. dated 03.02.2016 restricting service benefits to persons with disabilities appointed against supernumerary posts is contrary to the spirit of the 1995 and 2016 Acts, which mandate equal opportunities and non-discrimination - Held that the appellants are entitled to all consequential service benefits including probation, seniority, and promotion (Paras 12-16). C) Service Law - Regularisation - Supernumerary Posts - Legitimate Expectation - Appellants who resigned from regular government service to avail benefit of regularisation under G.O. dated 18.05.2013 had a legitimate expectation of being treated as regular employees - Subsequent G.O. dated 03.02.2016 withdrawing benefits is arbitrary and cannot be sustained - Held that the benefits conferred by the earlier G.O. cannot be withdrawn to the prejudice of the beneficiaries (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether persons with benchmark disabilities, who were regularised and reappointed against supernumerary posts pursuant to a Government Order, can be denied the benefits of probation, seniority, and promotion by a subsequent Government Order, and whether such denial violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 1st February 2021 and 5th March 2021, and directed the respondents to grant the appellants all consequential benefits including declaration of probation, inclusion in seniority list, and promotion, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Equality under Articles 14 and 16
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016
- Regularisation of temporary employees
- Supernumerary posts
- Service benefits including probation
- seniority and promotion
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
