The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that an employee, incapacitated by paralysis and unable to attend office, is fully entitled to receive salary during medical leave [Shakuntala Devi v. State of UP and 2 Others].
Justice Ajit Kumar made this observation while overturning the State government's decision to reduce the pay of an employee who had been on medical leave due to paralysis.
The Court emphasized that such actions contravene the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and stated,
"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 judgment was delivered in response to a petition filed by the employee's wife.
The petitioner’s husband, an orderly in the office of Joint Inspector General of Registration, passed away in 2020 after suffering from paralysis. Following his death, his wife sought pension and other dues, facing difficulties in securing full payment.
The High Court criticized the State for denying payment to the employee's family and expressed concern about how the family coped without financial support during the employee's paralyzed condition.
While some dues were released during the case, the Court objected to the State treating 967 days of absence due to paralysis as extraordinary leave without pay.
The State defended its decision based on applicable rules, but the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the supremacy of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, over the state rules.
The Court ordered the payment of arrears to the petitioner, expressing dissatisfaction with the State's actions and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the State government.
Additionally, the Court directed the payment of eight percent interest on the amount due to the petitioner's unnecessary hardships in pursuing her rightful claims.
