# Muhammad Naeem v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18224 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/muhammad-naeem-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53572
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

disability ; declined by impugned order dated
04.10.2024 by respondent Corporation

Headnotes
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016
-sec.-20,21,33-Petitioner
suffered
disability during his service period- Court
ordered independent examination by medical
board-recorded that the petitioner suffers from
a locomotor disability to the extent of 40%-
impugned order invalidated the claim for light
duties-ground -that there is no provision for
grant of light duties to drivers in the
Corporation-an
imperative
duty
upon
the
respondents to identify posts to be held by
respective
categories
of
persons
with
disabilities-rights of persons with disabilities -
cannot be transgressed -cannot be allowedimpugned order set aside- directed to permit
the petitioner to continue on the post with light
duties. W.P. allowed.
Held:
The impugned order neglects to consider
relevant facts and document which attest the
disability of the petitioner and disclose the
recommendations of competent authorities. The
said action of the respondent employers
subverts the intent of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and is contrary to the
provisions of the enactment. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
7 All. Muhammad Naeem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
List of Keywords
locomotor disability; disability during his service
period; light duties.

## Text

462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpretation of said Rules, no relief can be
granted to petitioner.

(b) In Prem Singh (supra) the
Supreme Court has considered the issue of
qualifying
service
of
Work-charged
employees and it was further clarified in
Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), whereas
admittedly petitioner was a Daily Wager.
Otherwise also, interpretation of Rules,
2011 were not in issue in Prem Singh
(supra)
and
an
attempt
made
by
Coordinate Bench in Jai Prakash Tripathi
(supra) has already taken note by a
Division Bench considering a reference and
question involve therein has already been
reproduced
in
earlier
paragraph
of
judgment. Therefore, when the issue is
already before Larger Bench, any other
interpretation
would
not
be
legally
permissible.

19. In view of above, the prayer
sought in this writ petition cannot be
allowed. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with an observation that on
basis of outcome of reference pending in
Kanhai Ram (supra) the petitioner will
have a liberty to avail legally available
remedy, if so advised.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 18224 of 2024

Muhammad Naeem ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sheo Ram Singh

Issue for consideration
Claim for allocation of light duties on account of
disability ; declined by impugned order dated
04.10.2024 by respondent Corporation

Headnotes
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016
-sec.-20,21,33-Petitioner
suffered
disability during his service period- Court
ordered independent examination by medical
board-recorded that the petitioner suffers from
a locomotor disability to the extent of 40%-
impugned order invalidated the claim for light
duties-ground -that there is no provision for
grant of light duties to drivers in the
Corporation-an
imperative
duty
upon
the
respondents to identify posts to be held by
respective
categories
of
persons
with
disabilities-rights of persons with disabilities -
cannot be transgressed -cannot be allowedimpugned order set aside- directed to permit
the petitioner to continue on the post with light
duties. W.P. allowed.
Held:
The impugned order neglects to consider
relevant facts and document which attest the
disability of the petitioner and disclose the
recommendations of competent authorities. The
said action of the respondent employers
subverts the intent of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and is contrary to the
provisions of the enactment. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
7 All. Muhammad Naeem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
List of Keywords
locomotor disability; disability during his service
period; light duties.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner is a bus driver in the
respondent Corporation.

2. By means of the impugned order dated
04.10.2024 the petitioner's claim for allocation
of light duties on account of his disability has
been declined. The impugned order records that
there is no light duty available for drivers in the
respondent Corporation apart from the normal
job of driving buses.

3. The petitioner suffered a disability
during his service period. The petitioner had
made a representation on 28.03.2022 before the
respondent authorities regarding his disability
and consequent inability to undertake rigorous
work. The said claim of the petitioner and his
request for allocation of light duties began to be
processed by the respondent Corporation from
the aforesaid date. The competent authority of
the Corporation by communication dated
28.03.2022
requested
the
Chief
Medical
Officer, Hamirpur to medically examine the
petitioner and draw up a report regarding his
disability. A medical board constituted by the
CMO, Hamirpur comprising of three specialist
doctors examined the petitioner. The report of
the
said
medical
board
which
was
countersigned by the CMO, Hamirpur on
04.04.2022 opined that the petitioner suffered from
40% disability.

4. Consequent to the aforesaid opinion of the
medical board a disability certificate was issued by
the competent authority to the petitioner on
04.04.2022. The disability certificate issued by the
competent medical authorities dated 04.04.2022
records that the petitioner is a case of locomotor
disability and he has 40% permanent disability in
relation to Left Arm, Left Leg as per the guidelines
(Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of
specified disability in a person included under the
RPwD Act, 2016 notified by Government of India
vide S.O. 76(E) dated 04/01/2018).

5. The CMO, Hamirpur in his letter/medical
opinion dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the competent
authority of the respondent Corporation stated that
the disability of the petitioner was temporary and a
cure was possible. However, the said letter
categorically recommended that the petitioner would
be unable to perform the duties of driver and hence
should be allocated light work.

6. Yet again the respondent Corporation
directed the petitioner to face a medical board. The
petitioner had appeared before the medical board
which was comprised of three specialist doctors
nominated by the CMO, Lucknow. The opinion of
the medical board dated 05.05.2023 which was duly
countersigned by the CMO, Lucknow reiterated the
said disability suffered by the petitioner and advised
light duties in view of the same.

7. The petitioner claims that despite repeated
medical confirmations of his disability and in the
teeth of medical advice the authorities of respondent
Corporation did not assign light duties to the
petitioner. Being thus aggrieved the petitioner
approached this Court by instituting Writ A No.
12227 of 2024 (Muhammad Naeem Vs. State of
U.P.). This Court by order dated 14.08.2024 passed
the following orders:

"5. In view of the above, this petition stands
disposed of with direction to the petitioner to move an
appropriate application within four weeks from today
before the competent authority-respondent no.4 and in the
event any such application is filed the competent authority
shall dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of this order by
means of reasoned and speaking order."

8. The application of the petitioner has
now been rejected by the impugned order dated
04.10.2024.

9. This Court by order dated 20.02.2025
directed the constitution of medical board to
examine the medical condition/disability of the
petitioner and submit a report. The medical
board constituted by the CMO, Lucknow was
comprised of three specialist doctors from King
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
George's Medical University, Lucknow. After
independent examination of the petitioner the
said medical board in its report dated
12.03.2025 recorded that the petitioner suffers
from a locomotor disability to the extent of 40%
as contemplated in the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. In effect the medical
board only reiterated the opinion of the earlier
boards.

10. The petitioner is a person with
disability under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Disabilities Act") and his rights are
governed and regulated by the Disabilities Act.
The objects sought to be achieved by the
legislature while enacting the Disabilities Act
are disclosed in the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Bill, 2014. The relevant objections
sought to be achieved by the enactment are
extracted hereunder:

"4 (ii) the persons with disabilities enjoy
various rights such as right to equality, life with
dignity, respect for his or her integrity etc. equally
with others;

(iii) duties and responsibilities of the
appropriate Government have been enumerated."

11. Some of the relevant definitions under
the Disabilities Act are discussed below.
Section 2(r) and Section 2(s) respectively define
person with benchmark disability, person with
disability,
while
Section
2(i)
defines
establishment.
The
said
provisions
are
reproduced below:

"2
(i)
"establishment"
includes
a
Government establishment and private establishment;

(r) "person with benchmark disability"
means a person with not less than forty percent of a
specified disability where specified disability has not
been defined in measurable terms and includes a
person with disability where specified disability has
been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the
certifying authority:

(s) "person with disability" means a
person with long term physical, mental, intellectual
or sensory impairment which, in interaction with
barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in
society equally with others;

12. The respondent authorities clearly
come within the ambit of the "establishment"
under the Disabilities Act.

13. The disabilities covered under the
Disabilities Act are detailed in Schedule I to the
Act. The relevant parts of the provision state
thus:

"1. Physical disability.- A. Locomotor
disability (a person's inability to execute distinctive
activities associated with movement of self and
objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal
or nervous system or both), including- (a) "leprosy
cured person" means a person who has been cured of
leprosy but is suffering from- (i) loss of sensation
in hands or feet as well as loss of sensation and
paresis in the eye and eye-lid but with no manifest
deformity;

(ii) manifest deformity and paresis but
having sufficient mobility in their hands and feet to
enable them to engage in normal economic activity;

(iii) extreme physical deformity as well
as advanced age which prevents him/her from
undertaking any gainful occupation, and the
expression
"leprosy
cured"
shall
construed
accordingly."

14. Section 20 of the Disabilities Act
prohibits discrimination against a person with
disability in any government establishment in
any manner relating to employment. The
provision being relevant is extracted hereunder:

"20.
Non-discrimination
in
employment.-(1) No Government establishment
shall discriminate against any person with disability
in any matter relating to employment: Provided that
the appropriate Government may, having regard to
the type of work carried on in any establishment, by
notification and subject to such conditions, if any,
exempt any establishment from the provisions of this
section. (2) Every Government establishment shall
provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate
barrier free and conducive environment to employees
with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a
person merely on the ground of disability. (4) No
Government establishment shall dispense with or
7 All. Muhammad Naeem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a
disability during his or her service: Provided that, if
an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable
for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some
other post with the same pay scale and service
benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to
adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept
on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is
available or he attains the age of superannuation,
whichever is earlier. (5) The appropriate Government
may frame policies for posting and transfer of
employees with disabilities."

15. Section 21 of the Disabilities Act
contemplates the an equal opportunity policy to
be followed by all establishments and the
provision is reproduced hereunder:

"21. Equal opportunity policy.-(1) Every
establishment shall notify equal opportunity policy detailing
measures proposed to be taken by it in pursuance of the
provisions of this Chapter in the manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) Every establishment shall register a copy
of the said policy with the Chief Commissioner or the State
Commissioner, as the case may be."

16. Section 33 of the Disabilities Act obligates
the government to identify the posts in the
establishment which can be held by respective
categories of persons with benchmark disabilities.
Section 33 speaks thus:

"33. Identification of posts for reservation.-The
appropriate Government shall- (i) identify posts in the
establishments which can be held by respective category of
persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies
reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34; (ii)
constitute an expert committee with representation of persons
with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an
interval not exceeding three years."

17. Section 33 of the Disabilities Act pivots the
implementation of the said enactment in the
respondent Corporation. The process under Section
33 contemplates that the identified post aligns with
the respective disability in a manner that holder of the
post can discharge the duties attached to the post
without being impeded by the disability. When the
respective disability ceases to be a factor in the
efficient execution of the identified post, the person
with disability realizes his/her true potentialities and
the legislative object of the Disabilities Act is fully
realized. The said identification of posts for persons
with disabilities is indispensable for the creation of a
discrimination free work environment for persons
with disabilities.

18. Failure of the respondents to identify posts
which can be held by respective categories of
persons with disabilities will not only violate Section
33 of the Disabilities Act which is a mandatory
provision of law, but will have a further cascading
effect. Non compliance of Section 33 of the
Disabilities Act will also create a discriminatory
regime against persons with disabilities, which is
contrary to the avowed object of the Disabilities Act.
The said omission of the respondents will flagrantly
transgress Section 20 of the Disabilities Act. Further
more the absence of clearly identified posts for
persons with disabilities, will negate the equal
opportunity which is contemplated in Section 21 of
the Disabilities Act. In short the scheme of equality
in employment for persons with disabilities under the
Disabilities Act will be subverted if the mandate of
Section 33 is frustrated.

19. The pleadings and materials in the record
establish that the petitioner has been suffering from
physical disability in the nature of locomotor
disability to the extent of 40% from March 2022,
which is depicted in the said disability is depicted in
the Disability Certificate issued under the Disabilities
Act. The said disability comes within the ambit of
"locomotor disability" defined in Schedule I of the
Disabilities Act. The petitioner had first made a
representation to the respondent Corporation on
28.03.2022 for being allocated duties commensurate
with his disabilities. It is also undisputed that the
petitioner was not given light duties nor paid his
salary since March 2022. The correspondences of
the
department
not
only
disclose
non
application of mind, but also display callous
attitude to the plight of an employee who is
suffering from disability, and a disconcerting
disregard for the law.

20. The impugned order neglects to
consider relevant facts and document which
attest the disability of the petitioner and disclose
the recommendations of competent authorities.
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The said action of the respondent employers
subverts the intent of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and is contrary to the
provisions of the enactment.

21. The impugned order had invalidated
the claim of the petitioner for light duties on the
footing that there exists no provision for grant
of light duties to drivers in the Corporation. The
aforesaid assertions in the impugned order are
in the teeth of the provisions of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. As
discussed earlier an imperative duty is cast upon
the respondents to identify posts to be held by
respective
categories
of
persons
with
disabilities.
The
rights
of
persons
with
disabilities cannot be transgressed on account of
the failure of the respondent authorities to
comply with the said provisions of the
Disabilities Act. The respondent authorities
cannot take advantage of their omissions to
deny rights vested in the petitioner by law.

22. The impugned order dated 04.10.2024
is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

23. The matter is remitted to the
respondent authorities with the following
directions:

I. The respondents are directed to
permit the petitioner to continue on the post
with light duties which he has joined pursuant
to directions issued by this Court. The petitioner
shall be regularly paid his salary as and when it
becomes due.

II. The respondents are directed to
pay the arrears salary of the petitioner from
March, 2022 till his salary was released last.
The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7%
for the period of unpaid arrears of salary. The
amount shall be paid within four months of the
date of receipt of a certified copy this order.

III. The Managing Director, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow
shall ensure that all officers are duly sensitized
to the rights of persons with disabilities under
the Disabilities Act and the legislative intent of
the Disabilities Act is brought to fruition by
faithful implementation of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent
Corporation. To this end the following shall be
executed within a period of six months:

A) Appropriate orders shall be issued
and training be conducted by the competent
authority.

B) Regular audits shall be conducted
to oversee status of implementation of the
disabilities in the respondent-Corporation.

IV. In the event of failure to pay the
amount of arrears of salary and interest as
directed above the respondents shall pay further
penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Managing
Director, UPSRTC shall fix responsibility for
non payment of the said amount and may direct
recovery of the amount from the concerned
officers.

24. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 466
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 19325 of 2019

Kanak Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Vice
Chancellor,
Banaras
Hindu
University, Varanasi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Madan Mohan

Issue for Consideration
The present case pertains to the computation of
"qualifying service" for pensionary benefits
under the Banaras Hindu University (BHU)
Statute and Ordinances, particularly Statute