After brain brain brain cerebral brain brain brains brain brains brain cerebral cerebral stroke, he returned to work after the High Court in Allahabad ruled that employees who acquire disabilities during work cannot be simply released from service. Instead, the person must be moved to a suitable place, the court said.
The case concerns the petitioner who was appointed as an assistant to the teacher in 2013 – then suffered a stroke in 2016 – and made him unable to fulfill his duties. When he tried to return to work in 2024, he was not allowed to continue his service.
According to the allahabad High Court, allahabad High Court said that the employer could not fire employees with disabilities – but instead to “make efforts” to temporarily move the person to a suitable function until a proper contribution.
What did Allahabad HC say?
The High Court appealed to Section 20 (non-discrimination in employment) of the Act on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities-Přím Juděk.
“Since the establishment of the 2016 Act, it is clear that where the employee acquires the disability during his service, his services must not be issued with somewhat efforts to develop to move him to a suitable place and in absence, to continue the excess position.
Read also: Switching tasks? The High Court in Delhi carries out a large observation in the clause about uncompetition – “Freedom of change of employment…”
The court stressed that such protection is necessary to ensure the dignity, integration and securing of employment for people with disabilities.
Why couldn’t the petitioners re -join to work?
Respondents established a committee to review the case of a teacher assistant. The Committee concluded that the petitioner could not perform teaching duties because he could not write or speak, and therefore could not be allowed to continue working.
The petitioner advisor claimed that it should be considered an equivalent place according to the provisions of persons with disabilities.
Read also: Jumping jobs? The Supreme Court’s judgment made it difficult, especially for fresheners
In response, the attorney stated that the petitioner submitted his representation on August 30, 2024 after he was absent for three years – from 1 October 2021 – and that he was rejected because of this long -term absence. They also stressed that the committee considered it unsuitable for teaching duties, and therefore could not reconnect.
However, the High Court in Allahabad ruled that under Section 20 (4) of 2016 of 2016 of 2016, no government employee who acquired the disability during the service could be issued.
(Tagstotranslate) Allahabad High Court Insability (T) Allahabad High Court News (T) Allahabad Hight Court
