Supreme Court Criticises CRPF For Removing Driver Who Developed Disability, Awards Him Rs 1.25 Crore

The Supreme Court on Monday(July 13) criticised the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for medically invalidating a driver after he developed a visual disability during service instead of accommodating him in an alternative post as required by law.

Holding that the force had failed in its duty as a "model employer", the Court awarded the former constable Rs. 1.25 crore as a composite amount towards back wages, interest and costs, modifying the High Court's direction for reinstatement since he has already attained the age of superannuation.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the Union government's appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had held that the CRPF violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, by medically invalidating the respondent instead of retaining him in service. It found that the CRPF failed to grant him an alternative post, a duty cast on government establishments under Section 47(non-discrimination in government employment) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Section 47 PwD Act peremptory in nature

The Court held that Section 47 of the PwD Act was peremptory in nature, reflecting the right of reasonable accommodation. It clarified that if a physical disability has been acquired during service, the person should either be shifted to some other post carrying the same pay and service benefits, or if not possible, the employer has to adjust him to any other post to the extent of creating a supernumerary post personal to him.

"The statutory mandate of Section 47, PwD Act is too peremptory to be ignored. The title of the PwD Act says it all. It is an enactment for persons with disabilities intended to guarantee them equal opportunities and full participation apart from protection of rights. Section 47, importantly, starts with “No”. Negative words in a statute convey a clear prohibition. It is a legislative device to make a statute imperative. An employee like the respondent, while retaining the status of a public servant, is entitled to security of service. "

The bench also referred to the 2002 notification relied upon by the CRPF, which exempted combatant personnel of the CRPF from application of Section 47 of the Act. It said that the notification was issued only in 2002 and not when the respondent was declared unfit, which was on March 11, 1998. It clarified that a delegated piece of legislation could not have retrospectively applied.

"The PwD Act came into force in the year 1995, whereas the respondent was medically invalidated from service in 1998. The NOTIFICATION saw the light of the day as late as in 2002. The duty imposed by the PwD Act being mandatory and not discretionary, the law did not leave the appellants with an option to discharge their duty at their convenience. Appellants were required to find a chair for the respondent, and not wait for the respondent to beg for one. By not offering alternate posting, the appellants failed in their role as a model employer and converted a welfare provision into a dead letter."

Background

To briefly state, the Respondent was a driver with the CRPF since 1985. In 1996, he developed an ophthalmic condition, and after examination, he was found to be suffering from Disseminated Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patches with Macular Involvement, resulting in complete blindness in the left eye and partial impairment of vision in the right eye.

He was then medically examined by the CRPF medical board and was declared permanently unfit for further service even as a combatant. He was asked to submit a representation, where he sought the grant of full financial and service benefits. On March 11, 1998, he was invalidated from service. He sought further representation, but it was rejected.

The respondent approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which directed the CRPF to reconsider the matter. It was reconsidered but was rejected on June 27, 2005. CRPF also clarified that the respondent was entitled to only Rs. 15,000 as a lump sum payment, as his disability was not found to be attributable to his service.

He preferred a writ petition before the High Court, which said that the respondent was unaware of his right under Section 47 of the PwD Act, which conferred a right on him to be continued in service notwithstanding the vision impairment. It ordered reinstatement on August 11, 2008, which was upheld by the division bench on December 23, 2014.

This was challenged by the CRPF. The sole contention of the CRPF was that the respondent asked for disability pension and never sought reinstatement throughout the whole proceedings. Therefore, he waived his right under Section 47 of the PwD Act. 

What did the Supreme Court say?

Explaining the concept of waiver of rights, the bench stated that the appellants were required to demonstrate that the respondent was aware of his right of reinstatement but chose to give it up by preferring disability pension. It found that there was no material on record to suggest that the CRPF informed the respondent of his right under the PwD Act. 

The Court also refused to indulge in the claims that the respondent had not acquired the disability during his service. It said that there is no material to suggest he had visual impairment before joining the CRPF. At the same time, the bench questioned how the CRPF, being an instrumentality of the State, could have passed an order of medical invalidation of the respondent in the first place, ignorant of its statutory mandate.  

In holding so, the Court reiterated that PwD is a beneficial piece of legislation:

"We, therefore, hold that so long as the proviso is not invoked by the appropriate Government for exempting an establishment from the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 47, the employer has a duty to offer an alternate post and the employee a right to be accommodated; however, once a notification is issued in terms of the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 47 exempting an establishment from the provisions of the section, not only does the duty of the employer cease from the date the same takes effect, the employee would lose the statutory protection of continuity in service. "

Since the respondent attained the age of retirement, the Court deemed it fit to grant him full back wages with interest and costs of the proceedings. It has ordered CRPF to make digital payment to the respondent within eight weeks.

"Given the nature of his disability, we presume that his other employment prospects were also rendered bleak. No evidence of the respondent's gainful employment has been placed on record. Appellants, having failed to provide an alternate post commensurate with the respondent's disability as mandated by Section 47, PwD Act, cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the principle of 'no work, no pay'. The situation of non-employment of the respondent is entirely the appellants' creation. Respondent is, thus, entitled to full back wages and the appellants must bear the consequences of their own inaction. The preambular promise of the Constitution cannot remain symbolic. Restitution of status with full back wages, interest and costs for the indignity of delay are the minimum we ought to order."

Noting that the respondent had already crossed the age of superannuation, the Court held that reinstatement was no longer feasible. However, it found that he had suffered years of economic hardship due to the illegal action of the authorities and could not be denied back wages on the principle of "no work, no pay", as his unemployment was entirely attributable to the CRPF's failure to comply with the law.

"The preambular promise of the Constitution cannot remain symbolic. Restitution of status with full back wages, interest and costs for the indignity of delay are the minimum we ought to order," the Court observed while directing payment of Rs. 1.25 crore within eight weeks.

The Court also directed the State Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority in Himachal Pradesh to assist the visually impaired respondent in safely investing part of the compensation and overseeing his future medical needs.

Headnote

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47 – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Medical Invalidation vs. Statutory Protection – Mandatory duty of the employer to accommodate employees acquiring disability during service - The Respondent, enrolled as a Constable (Driver) in the CRPF in 1985, developed a severe ophthalmic condition in 1996 resulting in permanent visual impairment - He was medically invalidated from service via an order dated March 11, 1998, without being considered for an alternate posting - Held: Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995 casts an unqualified, absolute, and mandatory statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee who acquires a disability during service - The employer is legally bound to shift the disabled employee to another post with the same pay scale and benefits, or adjust them against a supernumerary post until superannuation - The appellants failed to act as a model employer by converting a welfare provision into a dead letter. [Paras 74, 75]

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47(2) Proviso – Exemption Notification dated 10th September 2002 – Prospective Application – Exemption does not validate past statutory breaches - The Appellants relied on a Government of India notification dated September 10, 2002, issued under the proviso to Section 47(2), exempting combatant personnel of Central Para Military Forces (including CRPF) from the application of Section 47 – Held that Delegated legislation and exemption notifications taking establishments out of the purview of beneficial social legislations are ordinarily prospective and must be strictly construed - The notification contained no express words or necessary implications to apply retrospectively - The respondent's ouster occurred in 1998 when Section 47 applied to the CRPF with full force - A subsequent exemption notification cannot operate retrospectively to legitimise an act that was void ab initio. [Paras 55 – 60]

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Pleadings and Prayers – Mending/Moulding of Reliefs – Technicalities cannot trump substantive justice - The Single Judge of the High Court granted relief of reinstatement under Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995, even though the respondent's writ petition skeletal pleadings and prayers were limited to claiming a 100% disability pension – Held that while High Courts must generally confine themselves to pleadings and prayers to prevent judicial overreach and surprise, this is not an inflexible rule - Article 226 is a reservoir of equity meant to reach injustice wherever it is found - Where the record clearly evinces a suitor's legal entitlement to wider relief, but less is claimed due to ignorance, bona fide mistake, or poor drafting, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant appropriate relief, especially when the opponent seeks to use procedural technicalities to shield its own statutory breach. [Paras 37 – 43]

Doctrine of Waiver – Statutory Rights – Elements of Waiver – Onus of Proof - The Appellants argued that the respondent waived his rights under Section 47 of the PwD Act by consciously limiting his claims to disability pension and receiving terminal benefits – Held that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and requires proof of three elements: (i) existence of a right, (ii) clear knowledge of that right, and (iii) voluntary relinquishment despite such knowledge.

Mere silence, delay, or inaction does not amount to waiver - The senior officers of the establishment were under a duty to apprise the visually impaired employee of his statutory safeguards rather than assuming he voluntarily chose to forgo them - Waiver of a statutory right is heavily disfavoured when the statute serves a public welfare policy. [Paras 46-68]

Service Jurisprudence – Principle of 'No Work, No Pay' – Inapplicability when non employment is created by the Employer – Held that where an employee is illegally ousted or denied alternative employment mandated by a social welfare statute, the employer cannot take shelter behind the principle of 'no work, no pay' - The situation of non-employment being entirely the creation of the appellants, the respondent is entitled to full restitution, back wages, interest, and costs. [Relied on Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 57; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 209; Federation of Indian Mineral Industries v. Union of India (2017) 16 SCC 186; Distinguished: Union of India v. Dileep Kumar Singh (2015) 4 SCC 421; Para 79-81]

Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BALI RAM NO.850808321|CIVIL APPEAL No.13783/2015

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Addl Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, assisted by Advocates Navanajay Mahapatra, Shantanu Sharma, Rajendra Singh Rana and Abhishek Singh, appeared for the appellants, with Arvind Kumar Sharma as the Advocate-on-Record.

Advocate Aditya Dhawan appeared for the respondent, assisted by Advocates Kiran Dhawan, Anirudh Negi, Saurabh Duggal, Aditya Gupta and Tushar Bukkle, with Chander Shekhar Ashri as the Advocate-on-Record.