Grant seniority, probation, and promotion benefits to regularised persons with benchmark disabilities in Kerala
Judgment dated 23rd May 2025
Cause title : Maya P.C. & Ors v. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024
A Bench of Supreme Court Hon'ble Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon'ble Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal filed by the appellants in a case regarding the regularization of services for persons with benchmark disabilities in Kerala the Supreme Court upheld the direction of Single Judge to Grant seniority, probation, and promotion benefits to the employees.
Facts of the case are:
In 2013, the State Government of Kerala issued a Government Order (G.O.) to regularize the services of 2,677 physically disabled persons, including the appellants, against supernumerary posts created for their absorption. These supernumerary posts were to be abolished upon the retirement of the incumbents. Following this, the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis.
However, a subsequent G.O. in 2016 declared that these reappointed individuals would not be eligible for probation declaration, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion. Aggrieved by these restrictions, the appellants pursued legal remedies.
The cases include Civil Appeal Nos. 14915 of 2024, 14916-17 of 2024, 14918 of 2024, and 14919 of 2024. For instance, in Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024, appellants were initially appointed as Assistants at Mahatma Gandhi University. They were reappointed following the 2013 G.O.. Despite being included in the final seniority list after completing probation and departmental tests, they were later excluded due to the 2016 G.O.. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court initially ruled in their favor, directing the grant of seniority, probation, and promotion benefits. However, this was reversed by the Division Bench, which upheld the 2016 G.O.
Similar situations are described for the other appeals, where initial favorable rulings from the Kerala Administrative Tribunal or Single Judges were overturned by Division Benches of the High Court, which held that appointments against supernumerary posts were policy concessions and did not confer rights to promotion or seniority.
The appellants' senior counsel argued that the initial G.O. and appointment orders did not stipulate denial of promotion or other service benefits. They emphasized that many appellants had already been included in seniority lists and had probation declared. The 2016 G.O. was issued after they had completed substantial service, and some appellants even resigned from regular government service based on the expectation of being treated as regular employees. The counsel also contended that denying these benefits goes against constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16, as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides for reservations for persons with disabilities.
The first respondent's senior counsel argued that the 2013 G.O. aimed to provide reasonable accommodation without further competitive procedures. They highlighted that the 2013 G.O. specified that the supernumerary posts would cease upon the employee's retirement, and that extending further benefits like promotion would disrupt the rights of regularly appointed employees. They asserted that the 2016 G.O. was corrective and not illegal. They further submitted that the 2013 G.O. was a concession, and therefore, the appellants could not claim additional benefits as a matter of right, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Supreme Court, upon consideration, analyzed the 2013 G.O.,
noting its intention to grant "regular appointment" to persons with
disabilities who were temporarily working. The Court observed that
the appointment orders indicated probation, signifying regular
employment. The Court found that the 2016 G.O., which sought to
withdraw benefits like seniority and probation completion that were
implied by the 2013 G.O., was discriminatory and irrational, thus
violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that many
appellants changed their positions based on the 2013 G.O.'s promise
of regular appointments.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and restored the judgments
of the Single Judge and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The
appeals were allowed.
Download Judgment dated 23rd May 2025 in Maya P.C. & Ors v. The State of Kerala & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024.