Holding

Under Article 21, the employer must adjust a disabled employee in a suitable post, and the Court directed the appellant’s appointment as an LDC with his original pay scale, rejecting appointment as UDC due to qualification deficiency.

Summary

N.K. Chandla, a Sub‑Station Assistant in the Haryana State Electricity Board, lost his right arm due to cancer and could no longer perform technical duties. The Board reassigned him as a Carrier Attendant with a lower pay scale, which he contested. The Supreme Court ordered a medical board to assess his capability; the board found he could not discharge technical duties but could work in a clerical role. Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that an employer must adjust a disabled employee in a suitable post and directed his appointment as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with his original pay scale protected, while refusing to order his appointment as a Union Deputy Collector (UDC) due to lack of required qualifications. The Court also rejected any challenge to the medical board’s findings and ordered payment of arrears.

Issues considered

Whether an employer is obligated under Article 21 to adjust a disabled employee to a post of equivalent pay.
Whether the court can direct appointment to a specific post (UDC) when the employee lacks statutory qualifications.
Whether the findings of a medical board appointed by the court can be challenged by the employee.
Whether the employee is entitled to retain his previous pay scale and receive arrears.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21

Subjects

Article 21right to livelihooddisabilityemployment adjustmentservice lawtechnical postclerical postequal paymedical board

Judgment

)
NARENDRA KUMAR CHANDLA A
v.
STATE OF HARYAN.A AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 4, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B

Service Law: Employee holding a technical post-Afflicted with certain
disease-Amputation of right hand-Reasonably prevented from performing
duties in the technical jolr-£mployer offering alternative post with lesser pays-
cale-Validity of c
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21--Right to life includes right to
livelihood.

The appellant was working as Sub-Station Assistant with the
Respondent Electricity Board in the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2300. Due to D
cancer his right arm was completely amputated. He could work only with
his left arm. The Respondents absorbed him as Carrier Attendant, which
carried a lesser pay scale. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court
by filing a Writ Petition. The Hig_h Court having dismissed the Writ
Petition, appellant preferred the present ~ppeal. E
This Court directed the Respondents to constitute a Board of three
doctors and an Executive Engineer to find out whether the appellant could
discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post
in the same pay scale. The Board reported that the appellant failed to
perform his duties as Sub- Station Attendent or equivalent technical posts. F
The Board also recommended that the appellant could be considered for
clerical or non-technical post subject to his meeting educationl, ad-
ministrative requirements of the Electricity Board.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
HELD: 1. The Medical Board sympathetically considered the
appellant's capability pursuant to the directions given ~y this Court.
Therefore, the appellant may not be justiiied in making any allegations
against the Board. Suffice to state that in view of the findings given by the
Medical Board, assisted by the Engineers, the Court does not think that H
657
(
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A it can direct the Board to absorb the apellant either as Sub-Station
Attendant or in any equivalent post on the technical side. (660-D]

2. This Court cannot also give directions to the respondents to
appoint the appellant as U.D.C. which carry equal pay. The reasons are
B that there are two channels of appointment to the post of U.D.C. One is
promotion and another is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed at 75%
and 25% respectively. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation
or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification required
apart from the other requirements. Admittedly, the appt>llant is not pos· ~-
sessed of the qualifications. He is only Matriculate. [660-F-G]
c
3.1. Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of
right to life. When an employee is affiicted with unfortunate disease due to
which, when be is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding,
the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which
D the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. [660-H; 661-A]

3.2. In the instant case asking the appellant to discharge the duties
as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a Matriculate, he is eligible
for the post of L.D.C. for which apart from matliculation, passing in
typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per
E minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not must. The respon·
.dent board is directed te relax his passing of typing test and to appoint
him as a L.D.C. Admittedly on the date when he had the unfortunate
operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300.
Necessarily, therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected which shall
F be so done. The Respondent-Board shall pay all the arrears of salary to
the appellant. [661-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of
1994.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1990 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 8290 of 1990.

M.C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Appellant.

H Manoj Swarup, for the Respondents.
)
N.K CHANDLA v. STATE OF HARYANA 659

The following Order of the Court was delivered: A
Special leave granted.

1. The appellant while working as a Sub-Station A~tendant in the pay
scale of Rs. 1400-2300, unfortunately had to be operated on February 13,
1984 for Chondrosarcoma and eversince he was treated in Tata Me~orial B
Hospital, Bombay upto March 18, 1985 and threrafter he was discharged
and his right arm was compelely amputated due to the said Sarcoma. It is
a cancer affect but it was arrested. The Doctor in his letter dated May 3,
1985 recommended that he can assume his normal duties. The bone of his
right arm is completely missing. He shall work properly with his left arm
Subsequently, the respondents have absorbed his as Carrier Attendant in
c
the pay scale of Rs. 825-1300. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant ap-
proached the High Court and the High Court in the impugned order
dismissed the writ petition on October 10, 1990 in limine. Thus this appeal
by special leave.
D
2. On September 24, 1993, we directed the State Electricity Board,
hereafter the 'Board', to constitute three members' Board of Doctors to
examine the appellant whether he can discharge the duties of Sub-Station
Attendant or any other equivalent post carrying the pay scale of Rs.
1400-2300. We had also directed to associate any Engineer of the rank of
E
Executive Engineer working in the officer of the respondents to assist the
Medical Board in giving proper advice to the Board to come to its
conclusion on the point noted above. The three members Board was
accordingly constituted and the Chief Medical Officer in his letter dated
October 19, 1993 has submitted the report of the three members' Board.
They have stated that two Engineers assisted them. They had taken the F
appellant to 66 KV Sub-Station at Panchkula to assess his capability in the
operation of some installations. The report states: "He was unable to align
the trolley let alone take it in position. He also failed to raise it and had a
great difficulty in lowering it. He was then taken to switch yard and was
asked to operate the Isolator which he could not perform efficiently. The
G
Medical Board feels that such handling of equipment can be risky not only
to the installations but even to the person himself and as such the appellant
-t cannot perform the duties of Sub-Station Attendant".

3. The Medical Board also attempted to find whether he can be
posted as Sub-Station A.F.M., Foreman Grade III, Chargemen, Rigger, H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1994) 1 S.C.R.

A Crane Driver, Welder, etc. It recommended that the duties to those posts
are similar to the Sub-Station Attendant. Under these circumstances, the ,........
Medical Board felt that the appellant who failed to perform his duties as
Sub-Station Attendant cannot also discharge the duties of alternative posts
as mentionecd above. They have also stated that the appellant has been
able to write English and Hindi with his left hand and if the Board feels,
B he can be considered for clerical ·or non-technical post subject to his
meeting educational administrative requirements of the Board.

4. In the objections filed by the appellant he mentioned that he was
~
performing the duties in 33 KV and that there is no prior practice given
c to him for handling 66KV and his Advocate was not permitted to attend
at the time when he was examined thereby sought to make some allegations
against the Medical Board. We pay no heed, nor countenance such unwar-
ranted allegations against an impartial Board which has no axe to grind
against the appellant. The Medical Board sympathetically considered the
appellant's capability purS'Uant to the directions given by this Court. There-
D fore, he may not be justified in making such allegations against the Board.
S!Jflice to state that in view of the findings given by the Medical Board
assisted by the Engineers, we do not think that we can direct the Board to
give suitable post to absorb the appellant either as Sub-Station Attendant
or any equivalent post on the technical side.
E
5. However, we have considered the material placed before us by the
respondents relating to qualifications, etc., for working on the clerical or
non-technical side as suggested by the Medical Board. Though, Shri M.C.
Bhandare, learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue for
F directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as U.D.C. which car-ry
I

equal pay scale, we think that we cannot give such directions. The reasons
are that there are two channelS of appointment to the post of U.D.C. One
is promotion and anothex is direct recruitment in the ratio prescribed at"
75% and 25%. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation or law
graduation is the minimum educational equalificaiton required apart from
G other requirements mentioned therein. Admittedly, the appellant is not
possessed of the qualifications. He is only matriculate. As a result we
cannot give any direction to appoint him as U.D.C.
-r
6. A{t~cle 21 protects the right to livelihood as an intergral facet of
H right to life. when an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to
)
N.K.CHANDLA v.STATEOFHARYANA 661

. which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, A
the empoloyer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which
the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. Asking the appel-
lant to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he a
matriculate, he is eligible for the post of L.D.C. For L.D.C., apart from
matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed
of 15/30 words per minute is neces:;ary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not B
a must. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct
respondent Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as
a L.D.C. Admittedly on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he
was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Necessarily,
therefore, his · 1~st drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been C
rehabilitated in the post of L.D.C. we direct the respondent to appoint him
to the post of L.D.C. protecting his scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 and direct
to pay all the arrears of salary.

The ..appealls accordingly allowed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

·--i·-