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 natureThe 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."BackgroundTo 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...

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court held that the CRPF was bound to offer an alternate post to the employee as per the mandate of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court held that the CRPF was bound to offer an alternate post to the employee as per the mandate of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers