Employee suffering from paralysis entitled to pay during medical leave: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that an employee suffering from paralysis and who is not in a position to attend office due to his condition, is fully entitled to be paid while on medical leave [Shakuntala Devi v. State of UP and 2 Others]..Justice Ajit Kumar made the observation setting aside the a State government's decision to cut the pay of its employee for the period when he was absent from office on medical leave after suffering paralysis. The Court also observed that such a decision was violative of provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016."If the petitioner's husband (employee) was suffering from paralysis and was not in a position of fit physical condition to attend the office, such a person definitely deserved protection from the State which is to act as a model employer and hence petitioner's husband was fully entitled to pay protection for the period he could not attend the office for the disease paralysis he suffered from," the Court said. .The Court passed the judgment on a petition filed by the employee's wife (petitioner). The petitioner’s husband had been working as an orderly in the office of Joint Inspector General of Registration before he died in 2020 after suffering from paralysis.Following the employee's death, his wife approached the authorities concerned for pension and other dues. On facing difficulties in securing this payment in full, the petitioner approached the High Court for relief. The High Court criticised the State for denying the payment to the employee’s family, adding that it was horrible and quite depressing to imagine how the family survived without a single rupee when he was lying on a bed in a paralysed condition.“Equally it is shocking to know how administrative authority remained oblivious to the family condition of its employee and remained passive spectator to his plight,” the Court said. .While some of the dues were released during the pendency of the case, the Court had objected to the State government treating 967 days of absence by the petitioner’s husband due to paralysis as a period of extraordinary leave without any pay..The State defended the decision, submitting that it was taken in accordance with the applicable rules under the Financial Handbook of the State. However, the Court rejected the argument, saying that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which is a Central law, would prevail over the rules.“I do not find any justification for the respondents in not acting in terms of the provisions as contained in the parliamentary legislation being Act no.49 of 2016 which grants protection to the disabled person including those who acquire disability during service period,” the Court added..The Court further noted that Section 20 of the 2016 Act clearly stated that no discrimination shall be meted out to persons with disability in the matters of employment. A person suffering from paralysis would fall in the category of persons with disability mentioned in the Act, the Court pointed out.“I am of the considered view that despite there being parliamentary legislation, the respondents wholly, illegally and arbitrarily applied the principle of Financial Hand Book in not giving pay protection to its employee who suffered paralysis while serving the respondents and gradually acquired more than 80% disability and later died while in employment," the Court held. .The Court proceeded to allow the plea and ordered the payment of arrears to the petitioner (employee's wife). Considering that the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for no justifiable reason, the Court also directed that she be paid eight percent interest on the amount. Further, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the State government..Advocate Surya Bhan Singh represented the petitioner.. [Read Judgment]