TSRTC Directed to Reassign Colour‑Blind Driver to Suitable Post with Pay Protection and Arrears

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard the appeal filed by Ch. Joseph against the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) challenging his medical retirement on grounds of colour blindness and the refusal to offer alternate employment. The appeal arose from a writ appeal in the High Court which had set aside a single‑judge order directing TSRTC to provide alternate employment and instead permitted the appellant to make a representation to the corporation.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order of the High Court and directed TSRTC to appoint the appellant to a suitable non‑driving post on the same pay grade within eight weeks, with 25% of arrears of salary, allowances and benefits from the date of termination to reinstatement and with continuous service reckoning. The Court emphasised that retirement on medical grounds must be a last resort and that the employer must make a bona fide effort to explore redeployment and reasonable accommodation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

The appellant had been appointed as a driver on 1 May 2014 and was declared colour blind during a periodical medical examination. He appealed the fitness finding and sought alternate employment if declared unfit; the Medical Board and appellate authority upheld the finding. TSRTC retired him with effect from 6 January 2016 and offered additional monetary benefit under its policy, rejecting alternate employment on the ground that extant rules did not provide for it. The appellant invoked Clause 14 of a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) dated 17 December 1979 between the corporation and its recognised unions, which the Court recorded provided that “the Drivers found colour blind during the periodical examination” would be given alternate jobs with protection of time scale and pay and continued seniority. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but the Division Bench set that aside relying on this Court’s decision in B.S. Reddy and directed the appellant to make a representation to the corporation.

On appeal, TSRTC relied on a later MOS of 22 December 1986 and internal circulars of 2014 and 2015 to contend that the earlier 1979 clause was superseded or that alternate posts were not available for an illiterate driver. The appellant relied on the 1979 MOS, the Persons with Disabilities legal framework and precedents including Kunal Singh and Mohamed Ibrahim to contend that acquired disability during service attracted protection and required reasonable accommodation and redeployment.

The Supreme Court examined whether the 1979 settlement remained binding, whether the corporation had made any demonstrable effort to identify suitable alternate employment, and whether administrative instructions and the 1986 settlement could nullify a specific statutory settlement. The Court held that settlements under Section 12(3) and their statutory force under Section 18(3) could not be overridden by internal circulars, that the 1986 settlement did not expressly abrogate the 1979 clause, and that TSRTC had failed to discharge the burden of showing no suitable post was available. The Court relied on precedents recognising the duty of reasonable accommodation and protection of employees who acquired disabilities during service, and directed reinstatement with pay protection and partial arrears, treating the intervening period as continuous service. The appeal stood allowed and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 920 (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 36278 of 2017) Case Title: Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satyam Reddy Sarasani, Senior Advocate