IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that individuals with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations in employment, including continuity of service for pension eligibility, even if they have not completed the standard qualifying period.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Heard Shri Shivraj Gaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Sulekha Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to implement the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. It is prayed that the Director of Food and Drugs Administration, i.e. the Respondent No. 2, reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages and continuity in service along with consequential benefits.

3. This petition was filed on 10.07.2024. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent No. 2 by an order dated 19.08.2024 decided to reinstate the petitioner back to the post of Food Safety Officer. The petitioner has joined duty w.e.f. 20.08.2024.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner is willing to give up his claim for back-wages. It is further submitted that the order dated 19.08.2024 only states about reinstatement of the petitioner without any mention of continuity in service. It is submitted that the petitioner’s date of superannuation is 30.09.2024. The concern expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the period he has actually discharged duties is taken into consideration, then for the period from 24.12.1992 till the date when he was relieved on 21.03.2002, the same works out to 9 years and 3 months of service. The apprehension of learned Counsel is that as the petitioner is due to retire next month, it may be construed that he does not have 10 years of service to his credit. This will disentitle him from claiming pensionary benefits in terms of clause 2 of Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the issue of payment of pension cannot arise in this petition which was limited to a claim of reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service. However, in view of the subsequent events, petitioner is reinstated in service, in the peculiar facts of the present case we are inclined to consider the prayer of the petitioner for continuity of service to a limited extent so that he can claim pensionary benefits in terms of Clause 2 of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘Pension Rules’ for short).

5. The petitioner was appointed on 24.12.1992 as a Food Safety Officer. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia on 09.02.2001. He tendered his resignation on 26.02.2002. The petitioner was relieved from services on 21.02.2002 by which time the petitioner had completed 9 years and 3 months of service, i.e. less than 10 years.

6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that as the petitioner suffered a disability, he was not in a proper frame of mind to understand the consequences of a resignation. It is submitted that his employer was well aware of the disability since such certificate was submitted at the relevant time.

7. After a period of 20 years, the petitioner by letter dated 01.08.2022 made an application under Section 80 (b) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Disabilities Act, 2016) before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities-respondent No. 3, making out a case that the respondent No. 2 discriminated against the petitioner by relieving him from services in violation of Section 20 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 and Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘ Disabilities Act of 1995’ for short). It was pointed out that he ought to have been shifted to any other post with the same payscale and service benefits. The petitioner therefore claimed reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service.

8. Pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 480/2023 earlier filed by the petitioner in this Court, the IPHB vide its letter dated 08.02.2024 provided the medical report which, inter alia, stated that the pet