Skip to main content

Diabetes no ground for job denial - It is more a disorder than a disease

Diabetes cannot be cited as a reason to deny employment, the Madras High Court has said, pointing out that with an estimated 40.9 million diabetics India is world's diabetic capital.

Asking the Railways how can it deny job to a woman candidate on the ground that she suffered from diabetes, the court said that a diabetic is eligible for appointment in government posts as there is no scientific proof to show such a person would not be able to discharge his or her duties.

Posing this question, a division bench comprising justices V Ramasubramanian and T Mathivanan directed Southern Railways to appoint the woman within eight weeks.

"In the absence of any scientific evidence to show that a diabetic will not be able to discharge the duties of office, it is not possible to accept the stand taken by the authorities," it said while dismissing a petition by the Chief Personnel Officer of Southern Railway.

The bench said this was especially in view of the fact that India has become the world's diabetic capital, "probably due to the concerted efforts taken in the past five decades by the food, fertiliser, pharmaceutical and beverage industries."

The court pointed out that a global report by the Indian Diabetes Research Foundation had stated that 40.9 million Indians are diabetic. "Therefore, it is not possible to accept that they are unemployable or that if employed, they would become a liability on the employer."

Railways had challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing it to appoint a woman candidate Pushpam to a suitable Grade D post in 12 weeks.

On November 24, 2007, the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer had issued a notification to fill up 3,698 Group 'D' posts in SR and in Integral Coach Factory, Chennai.

Pushpam was one among 58 candidates declared medically unfit. She then filed an appeal for a medical re-examination, which was done. But Railways in a July 2, 2012 certificate opined that she was unfit for employment in A2 category.

She then moved the CAT, which allowed her application following a decision by the High Court in 2013.

The Railways then filed a petition against the HC order. The bench, while dismissing Railways' petition, reminded it of the earlier order where mention had been made of India being the diabetic capital of the world and that diabetes was more of a disorder than a disease.

Rejecting the view that diabetes may be the cause of future complications, it said Railways has nowhere contended that complications had arisen as a result of her diabetes, but only that her condition was likely to give rise to problems.

The bench dealt with WHO reports on diabetics and rejected the contention that Pushpam was not eligible for appointment and directed Railways to issue appointment to her in eight weeks.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-15/news/64449865_1_southern-railways-diabetic-the-railways

Comments

Most viewed this month

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...