Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram, Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 689
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
In a landmark judgment reaffirming the right of employees who acquire disabilities during service to continue in employment with dignity, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Union Government's appeal against a visually impaired CRPF constable and upheld the statutory protection contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“PwD Act”). The Court awarded the respondent, Bali Ram, a consolidated compensation of ₹1.25 crore towards back wages, interest and litigation costs.
The judgment is significant not merely for the relief granted to an individual constable who was unlawfully invalidated from service nearly three decades ago, but for its emphatic reiteration that government employers are under a positive obligation to accommodate employees who acquire disabilities during service.
Facts of the Case
Bali Ram joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Constable (Driver) in 1985 after being found medically fit. In 1996, while in service, he developed an ophthalmic condition diagnosed as Disseminated Choroiditis with retinal atrophic patches and macular involvement, resulting in complete blindness in his left eye and partial impairment in his right eye.
Following medical examinations, the Departmental Rehabilitation Board declared him unfit for driving and combatant duties. Subsequently, the Medical Board at the CRPF Base Hospital in Hyderabad concluded that he was permanently incapacitated and unfit for further service in any capacity within the force.
On 11 March 1998, Bali Ram was medically invalidated from service. His subsequent representations seeking redress were rejected, with the authorities taking the position that his disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and that he was entitled only to a lump-sum payment of ₹15,000 under the applicable rules.
Aggrieved, Bali Ram approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
High Court's Intervention
The Single Judge of the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, held that the CRPF had acted in violation of Section 47 of the PwD Act. The Court quashed the order of invalidation and directed that Bali Ram be deemed to have remained in service with all consequential benefits.
The Division Bench affirmed the decision in 2014, rejecting the CRPF's appeal.
The Union of India then carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Section 47: A Mandatory Obligation, Not a Matter of Choice
At the heart of the case lay Section 47 of the PwD Act, which prohibits an establishment from dispensing with the services of an employee who acquires a disability during service. If the employee becomes unsuitable for the post he occupies, the employer must shift him to another post carrying the same pay and service benefits or retain him on a supernumerary post until retirement.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Kunal Singh, the Supreme Court observed:
“The duty imposed by the PwD Act being mandatory and not discretionary, the law did not leave the appellants with an option to discharge their duty at their convenience. Appellants were required to find a chair for the respondent, and not wait for the respondent to beg for one.”
The Court held that Section 47 imposes a positive duty upon the employer to identify suitable alternative employment and that the obligation cannot be shifted onto the employee.
Relief Beyond Pleadings: A Significant Pronouncement
One of the most important aspects of the judgment concerns the Court's discussion on whether constitutional courts can grant relief that has not been specifically sought.
The Supreme Court noted that Bali Ram had originally sought invalid pension and related benefits and had not expressly invoked Section 47. Nevertheless, the High Court had granted him broader relief. The Supreme Court upheld this approach and laid down an important principle:
“Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way.”
The Court held that where the record clearly demonstrates that a litigant is entitled to wider relief, and denial of such relief would perpetuate injustice merely because of defective pleadings or inadequate legal assistance, constitutional courts may mould relief appropriately.
This part of the judgment will have implications extending far beyond disability jurisprudence.
Waiver of Disability Rights Rejected
The Union Government argued that Bali Ram had waived his right under Section 47 because he had accepted pensionary benefits and had never specifically sought reinstatement.
Rejecting the argument, the Court held that waiver requires conscious and informed relinquishment of a known right. Since there was no evidence that Bali Ram was ever informed of his statutory rights under the PwD Act, the plea of waiver was untenable.
The Court also observed that waiver of statutory rights under welfare legislation is generally disfavoured.
Exemption Notification Could Not Operate Retrospectively
The Union further relied upon a notification dated 10 September 2002 exempting combatant personnel of the Central Para Military Forces from the operation of Section 47.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument outright. It held that the notification was prospective and could not validate an action that had already become illegal in 1998.
The Court observed:
“The right of the respondent crystallised on the date of ouster; and a later exemption from the statutory mandate cannot efface the breach already committed.”
Importantly, the Court noted that the very issuance of the exemption notification in 2002 demonstrated that the Central Government itself recognised that Section 47 fully applied to the CRPF between 1995 and 2002.
A Sharp Rebuke to the CRPF
The judgment contains unusually strong observations regarding the conduct of the CRPF.
The Bench remarked:
“By not offering alternate posting, the appellants failed in their role as a model employer and converted a welfare provision into a dead letter.”
It further expressed surprise that an instrumentality of the State functioning under the Ministry of Home Affairs could ignore statutory protections available to persons with disabilities.
The Court categorically rejected the argument that disability protection applies only where disability is attributable to service:
“Parliament did not limit Section 47 to disabilities attributable to service; the protection is unqualified and unconditional.”
The focus, the Court held, must be on accommodation rather than exclusion.
Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement
The Court noted that Bali Ram had already crossed the age of superannuation and that reinstatement was therefore no longer possible. By the Court's own calculation, he would have received over ₹82 lakh in salary and allowances had he remained in service.
Recognising that Bali Ram had spent nearly three decades outside employment and had suffered economic hardship despite obtaining a favourable High Court judgment in 2008, the Court held:
“The situation of non-employment of the respondent is entirely the appellants’ creation.”
The Supreme Court consequently modified the High Court's order and awarded him ₹1.25 crore, inclusive of back wages, interest and costs, payable within eight weeks.
The Court also directed the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority, Kangra, to assist the visually impaired respondent in safely investing the compensation and attending to his future medical needs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment strengthens disability rights jurisprudence in at least four important ways.
First, it reiterates that Section 47 of the 1995 Act—and its successor provision, Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016—creates a mandatory duty to retain and accommodate employees who acquire disabilities during service.
Second, it recognises reasonable accommodation as a constitutional imperative flowing from substantive equality under Articles 14 and 21. The Court expressly relied on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India to underline that disability is socially constructed and that exclusion results from the failure to create enabling conditions.
Third, it rejects procedural technicalities and the doctrine of waiver as tools to defeat welfare legislation.
Finally, the judgment sends a clear message that public employers cannot evade their responsibilities by citing administrative inconvenience or belated exemption notifications.
For persons with disabilities and their advocates, Union of India v. Bali Ram is a powerful reminder that the law requires the State not merely to refrain from discrimination, but to actively create space for inclusion. The Supreme Court's observation that employers must “find a chair” for an employee who acquires a disability may well become one of the defining statements in India's disability rights jurisprudence.
Download the judgement in: Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram, Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015, decided on 13 July 2026.