Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Y J Immanuel vs Southern Railway on 29 January, 2026
1 of 15
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00419 of 2023
DATED THURSDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
Y.J Immanuel (Supernumerary),
Sr. Section Engineer/TM//RPM,
Southern Railway. ........Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. Ratio Legis)
Versus
1. The Union of India Rep. By
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai - 600003;
2. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
NGO Annexe, Park Town,
Chennai-600003. ..Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC)
CAV ON : 09.01.2026
2 of 15
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) This OA is filed by the applicant seeking to quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 and to direct the respondents to alternatively appoint him in a post in Level 7 of the pay matrix duly protecting his service benefits including seniority.
2. The applicant states that he had joined the cadre of Junior Engineer/Track machine in 2010 and after promotions, he was holding the post of Sr. Section Engineer Signals/ TM/RPM in level 7 in the pay matrix (Grade Pay Rs.4600/-) when he was subjected to periodical medical examination and was declared unfit to continue in the cadre. With effect from 2017, he was continued in a supernumerary post till identification of alternative post. Vide proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 15.11.2022, applicant was given the posting as SSE/TM/RPM on bottom seniority. Applicant requested to give him alternative post in level 7 in the pay matrix equivalent to the post of Sr. Section Engineer which he was holding substantively from November 2013. However, vide posting order dated 22-05-2023, applicant was posted as Jr. Clerk in level 2 in the pay matrix (GP Rs.1900/-) in Chennai division with bottom seniority thereby obliterating his career advancement. As the impugned order dated 22-05-2023 is in gross violation of provisions of section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Chapter III of Indian Railway Establishment Code and Chapter XIII of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol.
3 of 15 I, the applicant did not join the reverted post but has filed this O.A for aforestated reliefs.
3. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. M Kishore Kumar and have filed their reply statement. It is contended that as the applicant was declared unfit in AYE THREE, BEE ONE and BEE TWO medical categories, but fit in CEE ONE and below category with glasses, he was accommodated against supernumerary post with effect from 13.07.2017 and was directed to report to Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai Division for alternative post as there was no vacancy in Ministerial category in Track Machine Unit/ Royapuram. Though Chief Personnel Officer/Admin had suggested vide his letter dated 07.05.2019 that applicant be posted as Office Superintendent in Level-6 in Works Branch in Chennai Division, it was not agreed to by the Divisional Railway Manager for reasons stated in his letter dated 27.05.2019. Therefore, vide Memorandum dated 22.05.2023, the applicant was allotted the post of Junior Clerk in Level-2 in Engineering Department in Chennai Division.
4. It is contended by the Respondents that applicant is not a person with disability in terms of section 2(s) & Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He is also not a person with benchmark disability as per section 2(r) or a person with disability having high supports need as per section 2(t), of the said Act.
4 of 15 Hence that is not applicable to the case of applicant. Para 1304 of Chapter XIII of IREM provides that while finding alternative post for absorption of disabled/ medically decategorised staff, railway administration should ensure that the interest of other staff in service are not adversely affected and no reversion of any officiating railway servant is made to absorb the disabled/medically decategorised staff. Further, the provisions of Para 313 (a) of IREM gives space to the Administration to absorb medically decategorised staff in non-allied categories and protect their seniority with respect to the posts in which they are absorbed. Accordingly, Railway Administration has made best efforts to provide suitable alternative job and posted applicant as Jr. Clerk in the ministerial cadre which is non-allied cadre. The pay drawn by the applicant in the post of Senior Section Engineer is fully protected in the alternative post. Fixation of his seniority in the alternative post is also strictly followed in terms of IREM Manual taking care of the past services rendered by applicant in the previous post/cadre. Hence prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. Heard M/s. Ratio Legis for the applicant and Mr. M Kishore Kumar, SPC for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, employees who acquire disability during service are endowed with such protections as rank and status, alternative posting with the same 5 of 15 scale of pay and service benefits, protection against denial of promotions, etc. Denying such protection and posting the applicant as Junior clerk on bottom seniority in level 2 in the pay matrix as an alternative appointment by reducing his rank and status is in gross violation of the said Act. It is also contrary to rule 304 of IREC which provides similar protection of pay and service benefits. The procedure for absorption of disabled/ medically decategorised employees in alternative employment as provided in para 1301 to 1311 of Chapter XIII of IREM Volume I, and the procedure for fixing seniority of medically unfitted railway servants in the absorbed alternative posts as provided in Para 313 of Chapter III of IREM Volume I, have not been followed. Hence, the impugned order dated 22/05/2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in this OA has already been decided by this Tribunal and the Madras High Court and further challenge to the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court have met with dismissal of SLP. Hence prayed for allowing this OA.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant was found medically unfit for the safety post of Senior Section Engineer which he was holding in the safety category during the periodical medical examination. The 'unfitness' was declared based on the specified medical standards required for the post of Senior Section Engineer, which the applicant was lacking. Hence, he had to be kept away from performing the duties related to that post. As the 6 of 15 prescribed medical classification for safety category posts in the Track Machine unit is AYE THREE only and applicant is found medically fit in CEE ONE only, his plea for considering him in any post in Track Machine Unit is not permissible. Moreover, applicant's failure to come out successful in the periodical medical examination cannot be termed as disability and hence his case does not attract the provisions of the Persons with Disability Act, 2016. As applicant is not a person with disability as per the provisions of the said Act, he cannot be extended with the benefits he is not eligible for. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8. We have considered the submissions made by both the counsels and perused the record.
9. It is observed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provided in sub-section (4) of section 20 as under: -
"(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or 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, he 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."
7 of 15
10. From the plain reading of the above provisions, the mandate of law is crystal clear. It is stated in clear, unequivocal and unambiguous terms that the employee who acquires disability during his service is protected not only from being dispensed with, but also from reduction in rank. It explicitly provides that such employee should be shifted to an alternative post with the same pay scale and service benefits.
11. It is observed that this mandate in section 20(4) of the Act is reiterated in Rule 304 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code (IREC) which makes it abundantly clear that the employee acquiring disability during service should be shifted to some other post with the same pay level in pay matrix and service benefits. The said rule is as under: -
"304. Termination of service on account of inefficiency due to failure to conform to the requisite standard of physical fitness.--
(1) A Railway servant who fails in a vision test or otherwise by virtue of disability acquired during service and becomes physically incapable of performing the duties of the post which he occupies should not be dispensed with or reduced in rank, but should be shifted to some other post with the same pay level in pay matrix and service benefits.
(2) A Railway servant falling in clause (1) above ceases to perform the duties of the post he is holding from the date he is declared medically unfit for the present post. If such a Railway 8 of 15 servant cannot be immediately adjusted against or absorbed in any suitable alternative post he may be kept on a special supernumerary post in the grade in which the concerned employee was working on regular basis before being declared medically unfit, pending location of suitable alternative employment for him with the same pay level in pay matrix and service benefits; efforts to locate suitable alternative employment starting immediately."
12. It is further observed that Chapter XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Vol.I) deals with 'Absorption of disabled/ medically decategorised staff in Alternative Employment and Para 1301 therein also appears to be in conformity with the said provisions of the Act and rule and is extracted below:
"1301. A Railway servant who fails in a vision test or otherwise by virtue of disability acquired during service becomes physically incapable of performing the duties of the post which he occupies should not be dispensed with or reduced in rank but should be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits."
13. Therefore, the spirit behind the provisions of section 20(4) of the Act as well as Rule 304 of IREC and para 1301 of IREM make it abundantly clear the protection given to, and the entitlements of, employees acquiring disability during service. It is provided in rule 304 in unambiguous words that such employee should be shifted to some other post with the same pay level in pay matrix and service benefits.
9 of 15
14. Admittedly, when the applicant was declared unfit to continue in the post, he was holding the post of Sr. Section Engineer in level 7 in the pay matrix. As per the mandate of rule 304 of IREC and para 1301 of IREM referred to above, respondents were duty bound to shift applicant in a post in level 7 in the pay matrix irrespective of whether it is in the same cadre or not, but in such manner that his service benefits were not affected in any way. As the service benefits cover promotional avenues, seniority, etc., it is clear from the impugned order dated 22/05/2023 that respondents failed to follow this mandate of law. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22/05/2023, it is seen that applicant has been allotted the post of Jr. Clerk in level 2 in the pay matrix. The said impugned order is extracted hereunder: -
"Southern Railway Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Divisional Head quarters Chennai - 6 0 0 0 0 3 Dt: 22.05.2023.
No. M/P(C&P)/268/ Med-Decat/Engg/Vol-II/2023 MEMORANDUM Sub: Re-deployment of medically de-categorized staff of TMS/ RPM-reg. Ref:- This office memorandum of even no dated 06.07.2018.
Further to this office memorandum dated 06.07.2018, the Competent Authority has allotted the following employee to Engineering Department/ MAS Division as Jr.Clerk. The employee's details are as under.
10 of 15
S. NAME OF THE Ex- Already Allotted Now re-
No. EMPLOYEE DESIGN/Stn Dept allotted
(S/Shri)/PF No. Department
1 Y.J. Immanuel SSE/TM/RPM Ministerial cadre of Jr.
PF no. TM/RPM on Clerk/Engineeri
15204749250 bottom seniority ng
Department/M
AS Division on
bottom
seniority
1. He is eligible for all privileges as admissible for medically de-categorised staff.
2. His existing Pay will be protected as per extant instructions.
3. The Supernumerary post created in favor of the employee stands abolished from the date he joins in the new post.
4. The further promotion of the employee to the higher grade is subject to the suitability of the medical classification of the employee in the higher grade in the normal hierarchy of the cadre in which he is absorbed.
5. He is relieved from CP Cell, Sr.DPO/O/MAS on 22.05.2023 to report to ChOS/ Engg Cadre, Sr. DPO/O/MAS for further posting orders.
6. Salary and allowances will not be claimed if he refuse/do not join the new/alternative post on the above said date."
11 of 15
15. From the above order, it is clear that not only allotment of alternative post but also the terms and conditions specified therein were not in line with the requirement of law. The applicant was forced to take the lower post of Junior Clerk in level 2 even though he was holding the post of Sr. Section Engineer in level 7 when he was declared unfit to continue in the post. No attempt whatsoever was made by the respondents to adhere to the mandate of law and find an alternative post in level 7. The applicant was placed in bottom seniority in the alternative post in the re-allotted department thereby affecting his seniority. Condition No.4 in the above order also affected his promotional and career growth. Therefore, undoubtedly, the impugned order dated 22-05-2023 is contrary to the mandate of law as provided in rule 304 of IREC and para 1301 of IREM referred to above, and cannot be sustained in law.
16. It is claimed by the respondents that the pay drawn by the applicant in post of Sr. Section Engineer is fully protected in the alternative post and there is no reduction in his pay. But this cannot be a valid ground to deny him an alternative post in the same pay scale and service benefits including seniority and promotion. Attempt is made by the respondents to justify their action by relying Para 1304 and certain other provisions of Chapter XIII of IREM. However, any such provisions in the Manual which are contrary to the provisions of the said Act and rule cannot prevail over the clear mandate emanating from such Act and rule. Respondents cannot contend that the provisions of Manual are superior to the provisions of the Act and rules.
12 of 15
17. A brief study on the development of law on rights of persons with disabilities reveals that a need was felt for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and participate fully in national life. A meeting of Asian and Pacific countries called 'Meet to Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons' was held in Beijing in December 1992 by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific. A Proclamation was adopted in the said meeting to which India was a signatory and it was agreed to give effect to the same. Accordingly, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted. An employee who acquires disability during his service was protected under Section 47 of the said Act. The said Act was replaced by the the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 20(4) gives similar protection to employee acquiring disability during his service. It is observed that provisions of section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are verbatim the provisions of section 47 (1) of the the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
18. In a similar case in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 524] involving the right of a medically incapacitated employee to an alternate employment under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a 13 of 15 landmark judgement as under: -
"An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory
14 of 15 obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of definition given in Section 2(t) of the Act that benefit of Section 47 is not available to the appellant as he has suffered permanent invalidity cannot be accepted. Because, the appellant was an employee, who has acquired 'disability' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act and not a person with disability.".
19. In the case of A.Veeriya Perumal vs. Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfarе Department, Chennai [(2006) 4 M.L.J. 335], the Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that-
"12. The right to livelihood which is an integral facet of right to life as guaranteed under Article 21, coupled with the protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 entitles the employee who was incapacitated during service for continuance of service in suitable alternative post with same scale of pay drawn by him and other service benefits."
20. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22/05/2023 passed by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. By virtue of interim order dated 24/05/2023, the said order was hitherto kept in abeyance and the applicant has continued on supernumerary post to this date. In view of the fact that the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of law, the same 15 of 15 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. The applicant is entitled for appointment in the alternative post with the same pay scale and service benefits. Accordingly, respondents are directed to give appointment to the applicant in an alternative post in level 7 in the pay matrix which is equivalent to the post held by him before he was medically decategorised. OA is allowed with the directions as above. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
29 .01.2026
asvs
Digitally signed by
A.S.V. Sagar ASAPU SRINIVASA
P.S., CAT, VIDYASAGAR
Chennai Bench. Date: 2026.02.16
12:16:53 +05'30'