In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a paralysed employee, who is incapable of working, is eligible for complete compensation during the period of medical leave. The court clarified that the withholding of an employee’s pay during medical leave in such circumstances violates various provisions of the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The case involved the petitioner’s spouse, who was paralysed and unable to work. The employee’s wife, filed the petition, stating that in 2020, her husband passed away due to paralysis. He used to work as an orderly in the office of the joint inspector general of registration.
The petition further explained that following his demise, the widow submitted pension and associated documents to the appropriate authorities. However, after facing challenges in receiving the full amount, the petitioner sought assistance from the HC.
In a bench consisting Justice Ajit Kumar, the court emphasised that in a case where the petitioner’s spouse faced paralysis and inability to work, he/she is entitled to get full compensation for the period of inability to work due to paralysis.
Furthermore, the High Court criticised the state’s denial of compensation to the employee’s family, expressing dismay at the thought of the family surviving on just one rupee while the employee was paralysed.
The state government categorised the petitioner’s husband’s 967 days of absence due to paralysis as an extraordinary unpaid leave, despite some dues being released during the pending case—a decision contested by the court. The State defended its action, citing adherence to guidelines in the State’s Financial Handbook.
The Court rejected the argument, asserting that the regulations were overridden by the Central law, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Following the acceptance of the plea, the court directed the petitioner, the employee’s wife, to receive the payment arrears. Additionally, the court mandated an eight per cent interest on the amount, taking into account the unnecessary trouble the petitioner had to undergo. The State government was further instructed by the Court to make a payment of Rs 25,000.