Kerala High Court: Employee with a Disability Can’t Be Penalised for Inaccessible Workplace

Court: Kerala High Court
Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John
Case No.: OP (KAT) 51/ 2025  [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:36153] 
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v T. Rajeev
Date of Judgement: 26 May 2025

Brief Summary

In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace, the Kerala High Court has observed that a government employee with disabilities cannot be penalized for the State’s failure to provide accessible infrastructure. The judgment in State of Kerala & Ors v. T. Rajeev [OP (KAT) 51/2025] underscores the legal obligation of the State under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) to make public buildings accessible and to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities.

Case Background

T. Rajeev, who has a 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis, was working as a Senior Grade Typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. His office, however, was located on the upper floor of a building without lift access, making it inaccessible to him. Faced with this physical barrier, Rajeev sought an inter-departmental transfer to the Irrigation Department’s Thalappilly Subdivision office, which was on the ground floor of the same building. He also requested that his pay be protected, despite being transferred to a lower designation (LD Typist).

After several rounds of litigation, the State Government finally agreed to the transfer — but demoted his pay to that of an LD Typist. Aggrieved, Rajeev once again approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which ruled in his favor, stating that he should be paid as a Senior Grade Typist and that the denial of pay protection violated the RPwD Act. The State then challenged this order before the High Court.

Key Observations by the High Court

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John dismissed the State’s appeal, issuing a strong rebuke to the Government for failing in its legal obligations. The Court emphasized that:

“It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the infrastructural facilities in public places are accessible to the differently abled persons. … If any public place remains inaccessible to differently abled persons, the failure cannot be construed to their detriment.”

The Court relied on the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly:

• Section 3 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,
• Section 20 – Prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates reasonable accommodation,
• Section 45 – Mandates that public buildings be made accessible within a stipulated timeline.

A Crucial Principle: No Punishment for Seeking Access

The Court was unequivocal in stating that a person with a disability cannot be punished for the Government’s infrastructural failures. In fact, it acknowledged that Rajeev had himself proposed a workable solution — a transfer to an accessible location — which the State should have supported with pay protection, not penalized.

The Bench also held that:

• If the Government refuses to protect the pay, it must repatriate Rajeev back to the Motor Vehicle Department and assign him duties compatible with his physical abilities.
• Under no circumstance should he be required to climb stairs to access his workplace.
• The State was directed to pay him the salary of a Senior Grade Typist until his repatriation and to issue appropriate orders within a month.

A Broader Message to Public Authorities

This ruling is a wake-up call to public authorities across India. It affirms that the onus of creating accessible environments lies firmly with the Government, and employees with disabilities cannot be made scapegoats for systemic failures.

It also demonstrates how courts are increasingly willing to interpret disability rights laws in favor of substantive equality, aligning with the spirit of the RPwD Act, the UNCRPD, and the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equal opportunity.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces a fundamental truth: accessibility is not a favour—it is a right. And when the State fails in ensuring this right, it must bear the consequences, not the person with a disability. Through this decision, the Kerala High Court has not only upheld the dignity of one employee, but also set a precedent that could empower thousands of others navigating inaccessible workspaces.

Read the judgement

 

For more such case analyses and updates on disability jurisprudence, follow our blog: Disability Rights through Courts.