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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1730

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Nilesh Desai
For the Respondent:Mr. A. V. Bukhari, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Burhan Bukhari and Mr. Santosh Parad, for the Respondents – BMC.

Employers cannot terminate employees who acquire disabilities during service; they must continue to provide wages and benefits under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.

Headnote:(A) The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Section 47 - Termination of service due to disability - The termination was deemed illegal as it contravened the provisions protecting employees with disabilities. The petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and unpaid wages. (Paras 1, 22, 27)

(B) Legal Obligation - Employers are mandated to protect rights of disabled employees, prohibiting termination and ensuring payment of wages due. The principle 'no work no pay' does not apply when statutory rights are involved. (Paras 18, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a security guard, sustained a disability from a road accident while on duty. Her service was terminated without just cause, leading to a legal appeal. (Paras 3, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found the termination of the petitioner illegal and held that she is entitled to full wages and benefits from the time of her wrongful termination until reinstatement. (Paras 27, 28)

Issues: The primary issues included the legality of termination based on disability and entitlement to back wages under Section 47 of the Act of 1995. (Paras 13, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that Section 47 mandates protection for employees acquiring disabilities, and termination based on disability is illegal. The employee retains rights to salary and benefits despite being deemed unfit to perform original duties. (Paras 18, 24)

Result: Writ Petition allowed; termination declared illegal; respondents directed to pay unpaid wages.

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

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