The Supreme Court of India issued its landmark decision on August 1 2025 which confirmed employers must offer jobs to disabled workers who develop disabilities during their employment period.
The judgment supported an APSRTC bus driver who lost his job because of color blindness without receiving any alternative employment options.
The bench formed by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling which declared that such dismissals breach fundamental rights to dignity and equal treatment and non-discrimination found in service rules and binding settlements as well as the Constitution.
Case Background
The appellant who worked as a driver under APSRTC faced medical unfitness for his job due to colour blindness which led to his dismissal. The corporation ended his service without exploring any alternative employment opportunities. The High Court supported this decision which led the appellant to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Court expressed strong disapproval about the corporation’s actions through the following statement:
The Court intervenes to protect constitutional rights when employers terminate workers because of unchosen conditions while ignoring possible alternative positions.
The appellant made a direct request to transfer into Shramik duty which functions without colour blindness requirements. APSRTC did not show interest in the appellant’s request nor did they perform any evaluation to determine available alternatives.
Legal Reasoning
The court based its decision on Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) which established that service-related disabled employees must receive proper alternative positions when available.
According to the bench the legal error occurred when they assumed complete disability through only the inability to perform a specific role.
The Court reviewed two conflicting Memoranda of Settlement (MoS) which included the 1979 MoS requiring alternative employment for colour-blind drivers and the 1986 MoS which was claimed to supersede the earlier provision.
The Court determined through generalia specialibus non derogant principles that the specific conditions of the 1979 MoS regarding colour blindness maintained their authority over the general provisions found in the 1986 MoS.
The lack of explicit termination provisions within the latter along with the persistent enforcement of Clause 14 from the 1979 MoS after 1986 made the appellant’s position stronger.
Relief Granted
The Supreme Court permitted the appeal and instructed APSRTC to assign the appellant to an appropriate non-driving position that maintains the same salary level within eight weeks.
The employer must continue to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who develop physical challenges throughout their employment period according to this ruling.
Significance
The judgment stands as a significant endorsement of inclusive employment policies which operate throughout India. Employment decisions must adhere to principles of human dignity and equal opportunity because service-related disabilities do not justify abandonment.
Both public and private sector employers must modify their workplace policies to align with constitutional values and humanitarian obligations which now carry a binding duty.