Facts and procedural history
Umar Daraz joined Pakistan Railways as a Pointsman in BS-5 in 2001. During service, visual impairment left him medically unfit for that role.
Railways placed him in BS-3, a lower grade.
He challenged the downgrade through departmental representation and then the Federal Service Tribunal.
Applying clauses 510 and 512 of the Personnel Manual, the Tribunal placed him in the equivalent BS-5 post of Ticket Collector Grade-I.
Railways sought leave to appeal. It argued that Ticket Collector Grade-I was a selection post ordinarily reached through promotion.1
Original grade, downgrade and Tribunal placement
Original appointment
Tribunal’s equivalent-grade placement
Railways’ initial response to acquired visual impairment.
Issues
Could ordinary selection and promotion rules defeat a claim to suitable equivalent-grade work after disability arose during service?
Did reasonable accommodation require an individual assessment of suitable work, rather than reassignment only when a convenient vacancy arose?
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
This was a special transfer providing reasonable accommodation, not an ordinary promotion or appointment.
Railways had not shown why the Ticket Collector post was unsuitable. It also failed to produce the medical fitness certificate establishing the degree of Daraz’s visual impairment.
Leave was refused. The Court directed Railways to revisit its Personnel Manual in light of fundamental rights, the principles of policy and Article 27 of the disability Convention.2
Reasoning
Alternative employment under the Personnel Manual
Clause 510 requires efforts to find work an incapacitated employee can perform usefully and efficiently.
The assessment must consider safety for the employee, colleagues and the travelling public. Other deserving employees’ interests also matter.
Clause 512 says absorption of vision-failed staff should not depend on chance vacancies. Every endeavour should be made to find suitable alternative appointments.
Read together, the clauses protect continuing employment, so far as possible in an equivalent grade.3
Assessment of suitability for the proposed post
Functional capacity supported by medical evidence.
Essential duties, safe performance and possible adjustments.
- Missing in this case
- Railways produced no medical fitness certificate establishing the impairment’s degree.
- Employer’s objection
- Calling the position a “selection post” did not show that its actual duties were unsuitable.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines reasonable accommodation as necessary, appropriate adjustments needed in an individual case, without a disproportionate or undue burden.
Article 27 protects work and employment. It addresses discrimination, continuation of employment, career advancement, safe conditions and fair treatment.
Pakistan is a party to the Convention. The Court used it to treat accommodation as equality, not a welfare concession.4
Suitability for the proposed post
The Commercial Manual’s description of Ticket Collector duties disclosed no reason Daraz could not perform the role.
Railways identified no functional mismatch and supplied no medical fitness record.
Calling the position a “selection post” did not answer those gaps. This transfer addressed disability-related disadvantage; it was not a competitive reward for merit.5
Livelihood and timely accommodation
The Court connected Article 9’s protection of life, including meaningful livelihood, with Article 38(d)’s concern for people affected by infirmity or sickness.
Accommodation was a priority requiring early action.
The new role’s suitability had to account for the earlier duties and grade, so the employee was not financially worse off.6
Analysis
The decision examines both the impairment and the employment arrangements that disadvantage the employee.
Daraz’s eyesight affected his original duties. The initial administrative response then turned that impairment into a downgrade without establishing why equivalent-grade work was unavailable or unsafe.
Reasonable accommodation asks whether a rule or working arrangement can change without disproportionate burden.
It is not an automatic right to any chosen post. Actual duties, safety, available roles, other employees’ legitimate expectations and undue burden remain relevant.
The employer needs evidence of functional capacity, a genuine search for suitable work and reasons for refusal. Reliance on hierarchy or promotion rules alone is insufficient.
Factors relevant to reasonable accommodation
- SafetyThe employee, colleagues and the travelling public.
- Suitable duties and gradeExamine actual work and equivalent-grade possibilities.
- Other legitimate interestsConsider other deserving employees and available roles.
- Disproportionate or undue burdenThe assessment must consider whether an adjustment would impose a disproportionate or undue burden.
A refusal of equivalent-grade work requires evidence-based reasons concerning suitability and the applicable limits on accommodation.
Practical implications
Employers should obtain a function-specific assessment rather than infer incapacity from a diagnosis alone.
Consult the employee. Compare essential duties with demonstrated capacity. Examine equivalent-grade options.
Record concrete safety concerns, possible adjustments and reasons for the decision.
Lawyers should distinguish essential job requirements from inherited administrative preferences. A downgrade without this assessment is vulnerable.
The direction to revisit the Manual also matters beyond Daraz. Acquired-disability policies must reflect constitutional rights and the Convention, rather than operate as isolated concessions.
Conclusion
Acquired disability does not by itself justify reduced status or pay.
Umar Daraz requires prompt, evidence-based assessment of suitable alternative employment, with attention to the employee’s duties, grade and financial position.