IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SUMAN SHYAM, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Smt. Jyoti Jayesh Tayade - Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4209 of 2017
Decided On : 17-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of employment and disability (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on termination and back wages (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. analysis of section 47 of the act (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. protection against termination due to acquired disability (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. final ruling and enforcement of unpaid dues (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
(Per SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
1. The Writ Petitioner herein had suffered an accident during the course of her service, incurring disability, which had rendered her unfit for job. Resultantly, her service was terminated but in the wake of an order passed by the Commissioner for Person with Disabilities, (Disabled Welfare Commissionerate), she was reinstated in service. The grievance of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is on account of non-payment of her wages during the period in which she had remained out of her job due to termination of her service. The facts and circumstances of the case, as available from the materials on record, shorn of unnecessary details, are as here-under.
2. On 12th April, 1995, the Writ Petitioner, who is a graduate in Arts, was appointed as a Security Guard and posted in the ‘T’ Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. From time to time, her duties/assignment were changed. On 12th August, 2009, when the Petitioner had reported for duty and signed the attendance-sheet, she was asked to report for duty at the Security Post of Mulund General Hospital i.e. Agarwal Municipal Hospital. While travelling to the said hospital in a motorcycle with her husband, she had met with an accident. On being hit by a car, the motorcycle in which the Petitioner was travelling, was dragged to some distance and she fell down and sustained serious injuries on her head, neck, left shoulder and back. The Petitioner had to remain hospitalized for twelve days in the Agarwal Municipal Hospital and, thereafter, she was advised bed rest for three months. On 1st September, 2009, the Petitioner had applied for Special Leave, which was sanctioned for the period from 12th August, 2009 to 16th November, 2009. On 24th April, 2012, the Petitioner had made a request for assigning her some light duty. Accordingly, the authorities had assigned her light duty (fixed point duty) at the Agarwal Municipal Hospital itself. However, on 7th January, 2013, the Petitioner was referred for medical examination before the Municipal Medical Board. She had accordingly appeared before which. On 15th January, 2013, the Medical Board had opined that the Petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55% and that she was unfit for the job of Security Guard. A recommendation was, however, made that the Petitioner should be given some light duty. On 21st January, 2013, the Medical Officer of Sion Hospital had certified that the Petitioner was suffering from Motor Neuron Disease. On 1st July, 2013, a physically unfit certificate was issued in respect of the Petitioner, which was followed by the order dated 31st July, 2013, issued by the Respondent No.2, whereby the Petitioner was asked to surrender her uniform. On 23rd August, 2013, another Communication was issued by the Respondent No.2, whereby the Petitioner was asked to deposit her uniform, ID Card etc. and place claim for pension.
3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 31st July, 2013 and 23rd August, 2013, the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal under Section 62 of the Person with Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1995’) before the Commissioner, for Person with Disabilities, Disabled Welfare Commissionerate i.e. the Respondent No.7. After hearing the arguments from both the sides, the Respondent No 7 was of the opinion that the termination of service of the Petitioner was in violation of Section 47 of the Act of 1995. As such, the Appeal was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 4th September, 2015 with a direction to
Employers cannot terminate employees who acquire disabilities during service; they must continue to provide wages and benefits under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act mandates accommodation for employees acquiring disabilities, preventing termination during service.
The statutory obligation to protect employees acquiring disability during service and the discriminatory nature of extending age benefits only to specific disability categories.
An employee who acquires a disability during service cannot be dismissed; they must be accommodated in suitable employment as per the law.
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The termination of an employee based on medical unfitness is contrary to the protections established under disability laws, requiring adjustments or supernumerary positions for disabled employees.
Shifting disabled employee to new post under Section 47 does not require counting prior service for new cadre seniority; existing employees' seniority protected; promotion denial valid if lacking min....
Charges of misconduct leading to disciplinary action do not fall under protections for employees acquiring disabilities unless substantiated by proper mental health evaluations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.