[Disabilities Act] Disabled Employee Shifted To New Cadre Cannot Claim Seniority Based On Previous Service: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a disabled employee who is shifted to another post or cadre under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act cannot claim seniority in the new cadre based on past service in the previous post. The Court observed that while the statute protects continuity of pay and service benefits, it does not permit disturbance of the existing seniority of employees already working in the cadre to which the disabled employee is shifted.

Justice M.W. Chandwani was hearing a writ petition filed by an employee challenging his placement at the bottom of the seniority list after being absorbed as an Extension Officer (Panchayat) following disability acquired during service. The petitioner, initially appointed as a Lab Technician in 2002, suffered low vision in 2010 and, pursuant to earlier directions of the Court, was absorbed in 2016 into a different cadre with the same pay scale and service benefits. The dispute arose when a provisional and later final seniority list for promotion was published, excluding the petitioner. The petitioner contended that his earlier service as a Lab Technician ought to have been considered for determining seniority and eligibility for promotion, relying on Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.

The Court examined the scheme of Section 47 and clarified that it operates in two distinct parts: first, protecting an employee from discharge or reduction in rank upon acquiring disability, and second, ensuring that promotion is not denied solely on the ground of disability. It held that the provision ensures continuity of employment and pay, but does not confer any right to claim seniority in a different cadre based on past service.

The Court distinguished between “reduction in rank” and “reduction in seniority,” observing that while the former affects status and pay and is prohibited, the latter pertains to inter se placement within a cadre and impacts promotional prospects. It held that preservation of pay and service benefits does not imply automatic carry-forward of seniority into a different cadre.

It further held that granting such a benefit would adversely affect employees already working in the cadre, leading to discrimination and disruption of settled seniority positions. The legislative intent of Section 47, the Court observed, is to protect the disabled employee without prejudicing the rights of others in the organisation. It observed:

“… in the process of shifting a disabled employee in view of the mandate of Section 47 of the Act of 1995, seniority of the employees who are already in that cadre where the disabled employee is being shifted cannot be disturbed. Therefore, the contention that the previous service of the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the cadre of Extension Officer (Panchayat) cannot be accepted.”

On facts, the Court noted that the petitioner had sought transfer to the new post, accepted the condition of fresh appointment, and raised the issue of seniority only after several years when the process of promotion commenced. It also found that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum service requirement in the new cadre for promotion and was not denied promotion merely on account of disability.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that past service in the previous post cannot be counted for determining seniority in the new cadre after such absorption.

Case Title: Rameshwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6535 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)154

Click Here To Read/Download Order