Permanent disablement in accident while on duty – Adjustment of leave salary  against compensation under Employees Compensation Act 1923 – Railway Services (Liberalized Leave) Rules, 1949 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

On 10.10.2021, while working on duty as Pointsman in Northern Indian Railway, the petitioner met with an accident resulting in amputation of both the legs.

He was offered alternative post in February 2023.  Thus, there was supernumerary period upto January 2023. The medically de-categorized railway servant is entitled to pay scale and service benefits till alternative post. The compensation of Rs.9,53,955/- is payable to the petitioner under Employees Compensation act, 1923.   However, the respondent has adjusted his salary for Work related Illness & Injury leave against the compensation of Rs.9,53,955/- payable under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

HELD that the amended Rule 552(3) of Railway Services Leave Rules, 1949, provides that the leave salary amount under WRIIL shall be reduced by the compensation under EC Act, 1923.   Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides that no government establishment shall discriminate against a person with disability in any manner relating to employment.  Sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides that if an employee with accident disability is not suitable for his post, he shall be shifted to another post and if that is also not possible, he may be kept on supernumerary post.    Till then he shall be paid salary and the benefits.  Thus, adjustment of compensation under EC Act of 1923 against salary payable under Railway Leave Rules is illegal.

The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are beneficial legislation to protect the livelihood, dignity of employee as also family members and protect them from being driven to destitution.

The Respondent relying on its Rules which seem to be contrary to 1923 and 2016 Acts has illegally adjusted salary against compensation payable under 1923 Act.  The Rules can supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant the statutory provisions.  Rule 552(3) of 1949 Rules, therefore, needs to be ignored.

Judgment of the PH High Court in CWP-16352-223 (O&M) dated 21.3.2024 of Sant Kumar Vs. General Manager, Northern Indian Railway and others