REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2466-67 OF 2015

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.25568-25569 OF 2014)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

…APPELLANTS

VERSUS

DILEEP KUMAR SINGH

…RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

R.F.Nariman, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

These appeals raise an interesting question as to the

interpretation of a proviso contained in Section 47 of the Persons

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the “1995 Act”).

3.

The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:-

On 1^st January, 1998, the respondent was enlisted in the CRPF as

Assistant Commandant. While on duty, on 19^th October, 2001, he

sustained grievous injuries in his spinal cord and legs while he was

out on a visit checking night guards. Thereafter, he was provided

with specialized treatment in various hospitals, but nothing worked

1

Digitally signed by

Om Parkash Sharma

Date: 2015.02.28

13:27:21 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

and, ultimately, a medical board in its report dated 22^nd July, 2004

categorized the respondent as PEE-5, i.e., a person who is

permanently incapacitated and stated that he has 100% disability

and recommended that he be relieved from service on medical

grounds. On 27^th October, 2004, a show cause notice was served

on the respondent along with a copy of the report of the medical

board with a direction to submit his representation, if any, against

the proposed invalidation from service on medical grounds.

Instead of representing against the show cause notice, the

respondent filed writ petition No.30278/2004 challenging the said

show cause notice. By an interim order passed on 19^th January,

2005, the appellants were directed not to pass any order pursuant

to the report given by the medical board against the respondent.

4.

Pursuant to an order modifying the stay application, by an

order dated 1^st July, 2011, the respondent was relieved from

service and given invalidation pension as admissible under Rule

38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules of 1972. The respondent filed a

second writ petition No.42101 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid

order.

5.

By the impugned judgment dated 8^th January, 2014, the

Allahabad High Court held on a construction of Section 47 of the

said Act that a Notification dated 10^th September, 2002 issued

2

under Section 47 insofar as the CRPF is concerned, (exempting

the CRPF from the rigours of Section 47) would have to be read

with reference to the field occupied by Section 47(2) only. Thus,

the High Court made it clear that the exemption provision would

apply only to promotion and not to continuing the respondent in

service. As a consequence, the order dated 1^st July, 2011, was set

aside and the Union was directed to treat the petitioner in service

and to adjust him against any suitable post or against a

supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he

attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

6.

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General,

appearing on behalf of the Union of India has placed the 1995 Act

before us. He referred to Section 33, Section 47 and Section 73

and submitted that the penultimate proviso to Section 47 would

apply to the entire Section and not merely to sub-section (2)

thereof as is clear from the language of the proviso which uses the

words “this Section” and not “this sub-section”. He further

submitted that since there is no ambiguity in the provision, no

resort can be taken to Section 73(3) and 73(4) which refers to the

proviso in Section 47 as “the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section

47”. He further submitted that the scheme of the Act would be

disturbed by the impugned judgment inasmuch as Section 33 and

3

Section 47 cover the same ground – Section 33 being applicable

pre-appointment and Section 47 being applicable after

appointment. He cit