The Supreme Court has ruled that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) illegally invalidated a constable from service after he lost vision while in employment, holding that the statutory protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 applied in full at the time of his discharge.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held that an employer is under a mandatory obligation to accommodate an employee who acquires a disability during service by shifting him to a suitable post or, if necessary, creating a supernumerary post until retirement. The Bench observed that such protection cannot be defeated by technical objections or subsequent exemption notifications.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The respondent joined the CRPF as a Constable (Driver) in 1985 after being declared medically fit. More than a decade into his service, he developed a serious ophthalmic condition diagnosed as disseminated choroiditis with retinal atrophic patches involving the macula. The illness resulted in complete blindness in one eye and partial vision loss in the other.
Following medical examinations, the Departmental Rehabilitation Board found him unfit to perform driving as well as combatant duties. The Medical Invalidation Board subsequently declared him permanently incapacitated for service in the CRPF, and he was medically invalidated from service on 11 March 1998. His later representations seeking relief were rejected on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, making him eligible only for limited benefits under the applicable rules.
The respondent approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking disability-related service benefits. Although his principal prayer related to disability pension, the Single Judge invoked Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, held that the CRPF had violated its statutory obligation, quashed the invalidation order and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Division Bench affirmed that decision, prompting the Union of India to appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Union of India contended that the respondent had become medically unfit to perform both driving and combatant duties and, therefore, could not be retained in the force. It further relied on the 10 September 2002 notification exempting combatant personnel of the Central Para Military Forces from Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
The government also argued that the respondent himself had only sought disability pension and never claimed reinstatement or protection under Section 47. According to the Union, he had accepted terminal benefits and therefore waived any right to seek continuation in service.
The Court categorically rejected the plea of waiver, reiterating that waiver requires the intentional relinquishment of a known legal right. It held that there was no material to show that the respondent was aware of the statutory protection available under Section 47 or that he consciously gave up that right.
The Bench observed that the respondent had lost his eyesight and sought only disability benefits because he was unaware of the safeguards provided by law. It also noted that the authorities themselves never informed him about the statutory protection available under the Disabilities Act. Consequently, the essential ingredients necessary to establish waiver were absent.
One of the notable legal principles laid down in the judgment concerns the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that courts ordinarily confine themselves to the pleadings and reliefs specifically claimed by litigants. However, it clarified that this rule is not absolute. Where the record clearly demonstrates that a litigant is legally entitled to greater relief, and denying such relief would perpetuate injustice merely because of inadequate pleadings or poor legal drafting, constitutional courts may mould the relief to secure substantive justice.
The Court described Article 226 as a “reservoir of equity” and held that procedural technicalities should not become shields for public authorities that have violated statutory duties.
A central issue before the Court was whether the 2002 notification exempting CRPF combatant personnel from Section 47 could validate the respondent’s 1998 medical invalidation.
The Bench answered this in the negative. It held that delegated legislation, including exemption notifications, is ordinarily prospective unless expressly made retrospective. Since the respondent had been invalidated four years before the notification was issued, his statutory rights had already crystallised.
The Court observed that the notification itself demonstrated that Section 47 fully applied to the CRPF between the commencement of the Disabilities Act in 1995 and the issuance of the exemption in September 2002. Therefore, the subsequent exemption could not retrospectively legitimise an action that was illegal when taken.
Reaffirming its earlier decisions in Kunal Singh, Bhagwan Dass, and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal, the Supreme Court emphasised that Section 47 imposed a mandatory—not discretionary—duty upon government employers.
If an employee acquires a disability during service and cannot continue in the same post, the employer must first explore alternative employment carrying the same pay and service benefits. If no suitable vacancy exists, the employee must be retained on a supernumerary post until retirement or until a suitable position becomes available.
The Court stressed that employers cannot wait for disabled employees to ask for accommodation. Instead, the statutory obligation lies upon the employer to identify and provide suitable placement.
The Bench was critical of the CRPF’s handling of the matter, observing that as an instrumentality of the State it ought to have been fully aware of its obligations under the Disabilities Act.
The Court remarked that the authorities were required to “find a chair” for the respondent rather than compel him to seek accommodation. It found that by medically invalidating him without exploring alternative postings, the CRPF had failed in its duty as a model employer and effectively rendered a welfare legislation meaningless.
The Court also clarified that Section 47 does not require the disability to be attributable to or aggravated by service. The statutory protection extends to any employee who acquires a disability during service, irrespective of its cause.
Since the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation, the Court held that reinstatement was no longer feasible.
Instead, considering the prolonged denial of justice, the respondent’s visual impairment, the absence of any evidence of gainful employment after discharge, and the financial hardship suffered for nearly three decades, the Court modified the High Court’s relief and directed payment of ₹1.25 crore, covering back wages, interest and litigation costs.
The Court further directed the State Legal Services Authority in Himachal Pradesh to assist the visually impaired respondent in safely investing part of the compensation and to oversee his future medical needs.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
