KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has observed that mere medical disability for a particular assignment cannot mechanically justify termination from services, as protection of the livelihood and service benefits of a disabled employee formed part of the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and non-discrimination.
A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC headed by Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon also noted that where an employee acquired disability during service, the employer was under an obligation to consider reasonable accommodation and adjustment to a suitable post or alternative duties before resorting to compulsory retirement or removal from service.
It has also overturned a decision of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (Fuuast) regarding the premature and compulsory retirement of an employee on the pretext of visual impairment.
It directed the university to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with continuity of service and all consequential service benefits, and to further examine and provide reasonable accommodation or adjustment to a suitable post compatible with the petitioner’s medical condition, strictly in accordance with the law.
Court orders reinstatement of Fuuast employee retired over visual impairment
Ali Abbas had petitioned the SHC last year and submitted that he had been serving at Fuuast since 1996 and had earned promotions from BPS-1 to assistant superintendent (BPS-16) in the central library at the Abdul Haq Campus of the varsity.
He also argued that despite developing permanent visual impairment during service, he had continued to discharge his duties diligently, but the university had unlawfully issued an order in March last year prematurely retiring him from service, as he had raised concerns regarding employees’ financial hardships and non-payment of salaries.
The counsel for the respondent university raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition and argued that the service of the university’s employees was governed by non-statutory rules and that the SHC lacked jurisdiction to interfere in actions taken in good faith under the relevant law.
The lawyer also contended that the petitioner was lawfully retired on medical grounds after due inquiry proceedings, medical examination and approval by the syndicate, while complaints about his conduct and disruptive behaviour led to disciplinary proceedings and a medical examination wherein he was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa and declared fit only for duties of a “counsellor”, though no such post existed at the varsity.
The bench in its order said that the objection about maintainability of the petition did not appear to be sustainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as the grievance of the petitioner was not merely to a service dispute simpliciter but to allegations of discriminatory treatment, denial of due process and unlawful deprivation of livelihood on account of disability, thereby bringing the matter within the constitutional domain.
It also noted that the impugned action appeared to have been triggered only after disputes arose between the petitioner and certain university officials following complaints and grievances raised by him regarding administrative matters, and such surrounding circumstances cannot be ignored while examining the bona fides of the impugned action.
It further observed that the respondent university primarily relied upon the opinion of an ophthalmologist diagnosing the petitioner as a case of retinitis pigmentosa and opining that he was fit only for duties of a “counsellor”.
However, admittedly, it stated that no medical board was constituted to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the petitioner’s overall functional capacity and extent of disability or possibility of adjustment to another suitable assignment.
It also noted that the failure to constitute a medical board assumed greater significance in this case because the petitioner had continued serving for years with the same condition, and there was material on record, including testimonials from his immediate supervisory officer, reflecting satisfactory performance of duties.
“It is a settled principle of law that where an employee acquires disability during service, the employer is under an obligation to consider reasonable accommodation, adjustment to a suitable post, or alternative duties before resorting to compulsory retirement or removal from service”, it added.
The bench further said, “Mere medical unfitness for a particular assignment cannot mechanically justify termination, as protection of the livelihood and service benefits of a disabled employee forms part of the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination”.
The SHC observed that it is also unable to accept the contention that the university was absolved of its obligation merely because no sanctioned post of “counsellor” existed in the establishment.
“It is now a settled principle of law that where an employee acquires disability during service, the employer is under a legal and constitutional obligation to consider reasonable accommodation, adjustment to a suitable post, or alternative assignment compatible with the employee’s medical condition before resorting to compulsory retirement or removal from service, while interpreting protections available to disabled employees, we are of the view that an employee acquiring disability during service cannot be mechanically dispensed with merely because he becomes medically unfit for the original post, and that the employer must explore alternative placement with protection of service benefits”, it added.
While setting aside the impugned order of the varsity, the bench said that the same suffered from procedural impropriety, non-application of mind and failure to observe the constitutional and statutory obligations relating to reasonable accommodation of a disabled employee.
Published in Dawn, August 16th, 2026
