SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 175

2003(2) Supreme 102
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From H.P. High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Kunal Singh -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1789 of 2000
Decided on 13-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Anil Nag, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Sushma Suri, B.K. Prasad (NP) Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
As appellant has acquired disability by injury during his service and if not found suitable for post of constable he was holding, he should be shifted to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits but he cannot be invalidated on this ground from service.

Headnote:The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1985-Sections 2 and 47-Appellant a constable of Special Service Bureau, suffered injury while on duty, which permanently disabled him-He was invalidated from service by respondents -Writ petition against-Dismissed-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 47 (Non-discrimination in Government employments) of the Act? (Yes)-Whether receipt of invalidity pension as per Rule 33 of the CCS Pension Rules overrides Section 47 of the Act? (No)-Appeal allowed.

       Held : Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. (Para 9)

       Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the effect of other provisions of Section 47 of the Act. For the reasons stated and discussions made above, the appeal deserves to be accepted. Hence the impugned order affirming the order of termination of services of the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We direct the respondents to give relief in terms of Section 47 of the Act. (Paras 12 & 13)

       

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Special Service Bureau (for short the SSB ). When he was on duty, he suffered an injury in his left leg. The medical aid given to him did not help. Ultimately, his left leg was amputated on account of gangrene which had developed from the injury. He was invalidated from service by the respondents on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, Kullu under which he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service as per order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Shamshi (Kullu). He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he would discharge keeping in view the extent of his disability and having due regard to 17 years of his unblemished service. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that he had been permanently invalidated on the basis of the medical opinion and as such there was no scope for him to continue any further in service of any kind in the SSB. Hence, this appeal is filed assailing the impugned order. It appears, before the High Court, no argument was advanced specifically in support of the writ petition on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the Act ). However, a specific ground is raised in this appeal based on Section 47 of the Act. Since it is a pure question of law, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the contentions including the one based on Section 47 of the Act.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, pointing to few relevant definitions contained in Section 2 and Section 47 of the Act, urged that on the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the object and purpose of the Act, relief ought to have been granted as sought in the writ petition.

3. In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions in support and justification of the impugned order. He also drew our attention to Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 under which the appellant is granted invalidity pension which he is drawing. According to him, in view of the relevant definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, the appellant is not a person with disability as he is permanently incapacitated. He also drew our attention in support of his argument to Section 2(o) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 to make a distinction.

4. For proper appreciation of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is useful and necessary to notice few definitions as contained in Section 2 and Section 47 of the Act.

"2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) to (d) ..................

(e) "Cerebral palsy" means a group of non-progressive conditions of a person characterized by abnormal motor control posture resulting from brain insult or injuries occurring in the pre-natal, peri-natal or infant period of development;

(f) to (h) ..................

(i) "disability" means-

(i) to (iv) ...................

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) to (vii) ..................

(j) ....................

(k) "establishment" means a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of a Government;

(l) and (n) ...................

(o) "locomotor disability" me























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top