Reflections on SC judgement on Efficiency a ground for denying promotion to PWD

Dear Friends,

After my last post on the subject, I studied the detailed judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Union of India Versus Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007 and following are few reflections on the same:

• The whole debate around Medical standards for Persons with disabilities is actually confusing to many disabled people including those with visual impairments that this judgement might affect them adversely. There is a general fear that on one hand the employers might use the clause of efficiency & medical standards against the persons with disabilities to deny them promotional avenues and on the other hand, people without a certain nature and extent of disabilities (read -disabilities not covered under PWD Act) might usurp the rights and facilities of those who are presently allowed the benefits under the Persons with Disabilities Act.

• In this case, the Hon'ble Court failed to take in to cognizance that for a person with any disability to be eligible to a post for recruitment & reservation, there exist a List of Identified Jobs which can be held and performed by that category of persons with disability. The separate question of medical standards and disability will not arise here as the jobs have been identified taking in to account all such factors.

• Although the identification list of no consequence in the present case as it relates to the right to promotion which can not be denied to the person on the grounds of Disability acquired. If the person is unable to do the job, reasonable accommodation must be tried and use of modern technology should be promoted to help him settle in new role. If even that fails, he can be shifted on equivalent posts within the same department.

• The court has coined a new interpretation of Efficiency as a necessary condition besides minimum medical standards under Section 47 which is not in sync with the spirit of PWD Act. The purpose of Section 47 is not to recruit a person afresh but rehabilitating an employee who has acquired disability during his service, hence including clauses of medical standards and efficiency seem to be misplaced. Also Efficiency is subjective and when attached to disabilities can be misinterpreted and misused by bureaucrats, employers etc in their own way allowing grounds for discrimination rather than reducing and minimizing them.

• Incidentally, none of the posts in question i.e. Junior Research Assistant, Senior RA and Chief RA, are identified for persons with Blindness or Low vision, therefore, it hardly affects the rights of visually challenged in the Country.

• Though the respondent is not a person with disability in terms of the Medicalised definitions given in the Persons with Disabilities Act as neither the Colour blindness is defined as a type of disability nor the disability of the respondent has been assessed to be above 40%. However, Section 47 is a social security and human rights provision to ensure continuity of support from the Government in case an employee of the Government acquires disability during his service.
  Thus, to me here, the degree and extent of disability is of no relevance for the purposes of Section 47 (1) as the said person should be allowed to save his job under this provision, even if his disability is less than 40% for the simple fact that he is not claiming the 3% reservations available for the three categories of disabilities.

• If degree and percentage of disability is made relevant here to attract this section, then any employee acquiring less than 40% disability would be left without any rights and social security that this Section intends to guarantee.

• However, in case his disability is more than 40 %, he would be surely authorized to claim other benefits available to Persons with disabilities under the PWD Act besides saving his job under Section 47 (1).

• Therefore, if the Hon’ble Court had shown a little bit of judicial craftsmanship, it may have been possible to expand the definition of disability to include within its ambit the lack of or reduction in colour perception. On earlier occasions, Delhi High Court had considered a person with heart ailment as person with disability to save his job under section 47. This would have given a wider and appropriate interpretation to the Section 47.

• However, in the instant case, the issue was of denial of promotion and not saving the job.
  As claimed by the Respondent, the job of the all the three levels is same and earlier the post of Junior Research Assistant, Senior Research Assistant were suitable for Medical Category B3 and B2 respectively while the Chief Research Assistant was required to have B1 medical category (that requires person to be free from colourblindness). The same stood revised in 1990 as B1 for all three successive posts.

• However, the old employees were allowed to continue on their existing posts even if they were below B-1 (post revision category). The respondent is Medical Category B-2 currently and holding the post of Senior Research Assistant for which currently B-1 is the requirement as per revised standards of 1990. If the job is almost similar, then the rule of medical standards seems highly misplaced. Also if the old employees with lower medical categories can continue to hold and work on the present posts (now requiring B-1) without being a risk to safety, security and efficiency, then the same employees could also be promoted using same logic.

• However, looking at the judgement from a cross disability perspective, and from the perspective of UNCRPD, the Hon'ble Court has once again perpetrated the age old view of looking at impairments from the medical point of view i.e. the individual's condition and impairment in the body is seen as the problem and not the inaccessible social structures around. In fact the whole human rights agenda has been thrown to the back burners.

• The UNCRPD doesn’t make mention of degree and extent of disability in terms of percentage and types, the way PWD Act does, Hence, it perpetrates the medical model of disability. The domestic Act is desperately in need of amendments to be in sync with UNCRPD.

• Also the employer, i.e. RDSO did not explore any possibilities of reasonable accommodation which could make possible conditions of work of higher post which amounts to discriminatory exclusion. Whether Chief Research Assistant work during night and whether the job could be done easily with special equipments/devices was never explored in this case. The whole attempt was to declare him to be 'medically unfit' for the promotion by blindly following the revised medical standards. Colour Blindness is not a disease but a condition, thus discrimination on this ground is surely against the tenets of UNCRPD, if not of PWD Act which is constrained by medicalised definitions of various disabilities.

The judgement has left a bitter taste in the mouth of activists in the field and the disappointment is because of the inability of the Apex Court to arrive at a reasonable conclusion after considering all issues involved in the case and the UNCRPD & human rights philosophy.

regards

SC Vashishth, Advocate

Supreme Court | Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board | 04 Jan 2008 | Section 47 of PWD Act 1995

Court:  Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble G.P.Mathur, Hon'ble Aftab Alam, Justices

Case No.: Appeal (Civil)  8 of 2008   [Arising out of SLP) No.26357/2005] 

Case Title: Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board 

Date of Judgement: 4 January, 2008

Author: A Alam, J.

JUDGMENT:

Leave granted.

This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harboured by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of the case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of appellant No.1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous.

The facts of the case are brief and are all taken from the (Reply) Affidavit filed on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers (the respondents in the appeal). Appellant No.1 joined the respondent Board on July 19, 1977, on ad-hoc/work-charged basis. His services were regularized as an Assistant Lineman on June 16, 1981. While in service he became totally blind on January 17, 1994 and a certificate to that effect was issued by the civil surgeon, Faridkot.

Here, it may be noted that the rights of an employee who acquires a disability during his service are protected and safeguarded by Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 47 reads as follows : 

"47. Non-discrimination in Government employments.  (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits :

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2). No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.  

It may further be noted that the import of Section 47 of the Act was considered by this court in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. [2003 (4) SCC 524] and in paragraph 9 of the decision it was observed and held as follows :

"Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of the section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employee shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of a social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service." (Emphasis added) 

After the Act came into force with effect from December 7, 1996 (vide S.O.107(E) dated 7th February, 1996), the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, issued a letter dated September 24, 1996 directing all the heads of departments to comply with Section 47 of the Act. The Punjab State Electricity Board too adopted the Government letter under its Circular No.6/97, dated February 17, 1997.

In view of Section 47 of the Act and the Circulars issued by the State Government and the Board it is clear that notwithstanding the disability acquired by the appellant the Board was legally bound to continue him in service. But on behalf of the respondent it is stated that the disabled employee himself wanted to retire from service and, therefore, the provisions of Section 47 had no application to his case. Here it needs to be made clear that at no stage any plea was raised that since the appellant was declared completely blind on January 17, 1994 he was not covered by the provisions of the Act that come into force on February 7, 1996. Such plea can not be raised because on February 7, 1996 when the Act came into force the appellant was undeniably in service and his contract of employment with the Board was subsisting. His case was, therefore, squarely covered by the provisions of the Act.

Coming now to the reason assigned by the Board to deny him the protection of Section 47 of the Act, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that he remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave from January 18, 1994 to March 21, 1997. He was directed by the Executive Engineer to resume duties vide Memo No.412, dated March 16, 1994 and Memo No.6411, dated August 4, 1994. He, however, failed to report for duty and on September 13, 1994, a charge sheet was issued initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for gross misconduct under regulation 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment & Appeal Regulation 1971. The matter appears to have lain dormant for sometime and then it is stated that the appellant by his letter dated July 17, 1996 requested the Board to retire him from service. As a matter of fact by this letter the appellant sought to explain his absence from duty and requested that his wife might be employed in his place. But it was made the basis for denying the appellant his lawful dues. Since the whole case of the respondents is based on this letter it would be appropriate to reproduce it in full :

"Sir, I explain as under the subject cited unnatural happening which I met, When I was returning home after performing my duty on 17-1-94 then vision of my eyes lessened suddenly. I got treatment from far and near for eye-sight/lessening of vision of my eyes. But I became completely blind. Now I cannot perform my hard work duty. I want to retire from service. I may be retired and my wife may be provided with suitable job against me. Yourself will be genesis to me." (Emphasis added) 

At this stage some internal correspondences took place between the officers of the Board over the question how to deal with the appellant. On July 10, 1997, the Senior Executive Engineer (OP) Division, Malout wrote to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Operation Circle, Muktsar, asking for instructions in the matter. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the letter are relevant and are reproduced below :

"2) As per report of Medical Board the official is unfit for duty, he cannot perform any duty.

3) But as per instructions contained in Punjab Government Memo No.17/16/94-5 PP-1/6546 adopted by PSEB vide its Circular No.6/97 the official/officer it (sic is) not to be retired from service who become disable during service.

4) The official has represented that he may be retired from duty and his wife be provided with suitable job."

The Senior Executive Engineer received the reply from the Secretary of the Board vide letter dated February 17, 1998 in which he was advised as follows :

"It is advisable to retire the official as per rules and regulations of the Board if the employee is not otherwise interested in taking the benefit of Board's Circular No.6/97.

For the purpose of clarification as to whether employee is entitled to the benefits, otherwise admissible under rules/regulations of the Board in preference to Benefits admissible under Circular No.6/97, if he so desires, can be obtained from the Office concerned which issued said circular." 

Later on, the charge-sheet issued against the appellant was withdrawn by the Senior Executive Engineer vide Office Order No.14, dated January 13, 1999 and the appellant was asked to submit leave application for the period of absence.

Next in series is a letter, dated November 15, 1999, from the Director/IR, PSEB, Patiala to the Senior Executive Engineer, (OP) Division, Malout. In this letter it was stated as follows :

"As per cited subject it is made clear that employee who is blind shall not be retired as per instructions of the Board. But is (sic. if) such employee himself make request for retirement then he can be given retirement on medical ground." 

Finally, the Senior Executive Engineer, issued Office Order No.559, dated December 14, 1999, by which the appellant was relieved from service with effect from March 21, 1997 (the date of issuance of Medical Certificate) as per Rule 5.11 of Civil Services Rules-Vol.II.

It appears that the appellant protested against the action of the Board in relieving him from service and made representations. The representations, it seems, were forwarded to the superior authorities and the Board's decision was communicated to the Senior Executive Engineer vide letter dated February 18, 2000 from the Director/IR, PSEB, Patiala. The contents of the letter are as follows : 

"With regard to cited subject it is made clear that there are instructions of the Board on which blind employee is not liable to be retired. But in the case of Shri Bhagwan Dass ALM advice of retirement was given as he himself made request for his retirement on Medical Ground. So the case of this employee is not likely considered for his rejoining of duty."

The appellant then filed an affidavit before the concerned officers. A copy of the affidavit is at Annexure R-12 to the respondents' affidavit. In the affidavit he pathetically pleaded that he had no knowledge about the Rules of the Electricity Board and represented for retirement unknowingly. He further stated that when he came to know that there was no need for retirement for those who were disabled during service he again represented that he might not be retired and might be retained in service as per the instructions of the department. The affidavit did not evoke any response but the severance was completed by making payment of his terminal dues.

The disabled employee then approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12534 of 2004 seeking relief in terms of section 47 of the Act and the Circulars issued by the State Government and the Board in its furtherance. In the writ petition he was joined by his son, appellant No.2, and an alternative relief was sought for employment of his son in his place. Unfortunately, before the High Court it was the second relief that came into focus and the High Court dismissed the writ petition by a brief order referring to the decision of this Court in Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [1994 (3) SCT 174]. 

In the High Court order there is no mention of Section 47 of the Act and the disabled employees' claim/right on that basis. Against that order this appeal is preferred in which the disabled employee agitates his rights on the basis of Section 47 of the Act. From the materials brought before the court by none other than the respondent-Board it is manifest that notwithstanding the clear and definite legislative mandate some officers of the Board took the view that it was not right to continue a blind, useless man on the Board's rolls and to pay him monthly salary in return of no service. They accordingly persuaded each other that the appellant had himself asked for retirement from service and, therefore, he was not entitled to the protection of the Act. The only material on the basis of which the officers of the Board took the stand that the appellant had himself made a request for retirement on medical grounds was his letter dated July 17, 1996. The letter was written when a charge sheet was issued to him and in the letter he was trying to explain his absence from duty. In this letter he requested to be retired but at the same time asked that his wife should be given a suitable job in his place. In our view it is impossible to read that letter as a voluntary offer for retirement. Appellant No.1 was a Class IV employee, a Lineman. He completely lost his vision. He was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness would cause him to lose his job, the source of livelihood of his family. The enormous mental pressure under which he would have been at that time is not difficult to imagine. In those circumstances it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Instead of doing that they threw him out of service by picking up a sentence from his letter, completely out of context. The action of the concerned officers of the Board, to our mind, was deprecatable. 

We understand that the concerned officers were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mind-set it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful rights of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the officers failed to realise that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country.

In light of the discussions made above, the action of the Board in terminating the service of the disabled employee (appellant No.1) with effect from March 21, 1997 must be held to be bad and illegal. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, the appellant must be deemed to be in service and he would be entitled to all service benefits including annual increments and promotions etc. till the date of his retirement. The amount of terminal benefits paid to him should be adjusted against the amount of his salary from March 22, 1997 till date. If any balance remains, that should be adjusted in easy monthly installments from his future salary. The appellant shall continue in service till his date of superannuation according to the service records. He should be reinstated and all due payments, after adjustments as directed, should be made to him within six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment before the Secretary of the Board.

In the result the appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

--------------

On acquiring disability, last drawn pay of the employee shall be protected- Allahabad HC

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bench: Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. and  Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

Case No: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2229 of 2004

Caste Title: Union of India & Ors,.  Vs. Mohd. Mobin Khan & Anr.

JUDGEMENT

Bench:
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 164 of 1999 filed by Mohd. Mobin Khan (hereinafter referred to as the ''Applicant'). The Original Application had been filed for quashing the order dated 1st February, 1999 by which the applicant was given compulsory retirement under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules on the ground of disability and a direction was also sought to appoint the applicant in the same pay-scale as Assistant Foreman or Store Superintendent.

The applicant was initially appointed as an ad hoc Helper in October, 1969 under the Central Ground Water Board Division-III Varanasi. He was subsequently regularized and was granted promotions from time to time. While he was holding the post of DCM at Varanasi, he met with an accident on 21st February, 1995 as a result of which he was hospitalized. His left leg was amputated and he also lost vision in the right eye. He was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 3rd August, 1996 with a fitness certificate for doing light duty and sitting job. He was also referred to the Chief Medical Officer of the S.S.P.G. Hospital Varanasi by the employees for medical examination. The Medical Board of the said Hospital issued a certificate dated 23rd October, 1997 that the applicant was fit to perform duties like writing, maintenance of submission of report, maintenance of log books and store account books etc. The Department considered the case of the applicant and retained him in service on clerical post in the grade of LDC only. The terms indicated in the letter dated 5.1.1998 are as follows:-

"Shri Mobin Khan, DCM of this Division has been declared unfit for technical work by the medical authority. However, his case has been considered sympathetically by the competent authority of the Board to be retained in service on Clerical post in the grade of L.D.C. only.

"Shri Khan is directed to submit his willingness for appointment to the post of L.D.C. subject to the following conditions:-

1. He will be treated as a fresh recruit.

2. He will be treated as a junior person in the grade of L.D.C.

3. His past services will be counted for pensionery and allied benefits.

His willingness for the post of LDC must reach the office of the undersigned within seven days from the receipt of this O.M.

Further, in the event of his unwillingness for the post of LDC, he can not be continued in the post of DCM and he will have to be retired from Govt. service on invalid pension."

The applicant joined as LDC but made a representation to the Authorities to protect his pay by retaining him in service as Store Superintendent/Store Foreman on the ground that he was educationally and otherwise competent to hold that post. However by the letter 21st July 1998, the applicant was informed that his pay cannot be protected and if he did not accept the terms indicated in the letter he would be retired on ground of disability. The applicant again made a request for pay protection so that he could support his family but the Department issued the order dated 1st February, 1999 by which applicant DCM was retired from Central Ground Board Division-III Varanasi, under Rule 38 CCS (Pension) Rules as he failed to accept the post of LDC.

It is this order that was challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal with a prayer for a further direction for pay protection. The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment quashed the order dated 1st February, 1999 and issued the following directions:-

(i) The applicant will be reinstated as LDC in case he gives his willingness within a month of the communication of this order protecting his last pay drawn by grant of personal pay.

(ii) In case the applicant gives his willingness and joins as LDC the applicant shall be entitled for 50% of the wages for the period from 01.02.1999 to the date of reinstatement. Such pay shall be granted after deducting the pension and other allowances already drawn. The period referred to above shall be counted for pension purposes.

(iii) The post retiral benefits already granted to the applicant in the shape of D.C.R.G., leave encashment etc., shall be adjusted from the post retiral benefits which would accrue to the applicant at the time of his superannuation.

We have heard Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that last pay of the applicant cannot be protected in view of the provisions of Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules and, therefore, the directions issued by the Tribunal were bad in law. He further submitted that the injury had not been caused to the applicant "during the course of employment" and, therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the petitioners to engage the applicant or protect his pay and that the order of retirement was justified as the applicant did not accept the terms as were required under the communication dated 21st July, 1998. Another submission was made that as the petitioner had received compensation for the loss suffered on account of accident as per the order of the Compensation Commissioner, Varanasi, the order of the Tribunal was not justified.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent, however submitted that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal and in any view of the matter the last pay paid to the petitioner had to be protected in view of the provisions of Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Disabilities Act'). He further submitted that the applicant had suffered injury during the course of employment and that Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules or the receipt of any compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act cannot debar the applicant from claiming the relief under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.

We have carefully considered the averments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the Original Application filed by the applicant before the Tribunal indicates that the work of the applicant related to field work and on 21st February, 1995 after completing the tubewell work, the applicant with his companion was returning back in a truck when unfortunately the accident took place and he was admitted in the Hospital. It was on 3rd of August, 1996 that he was discharged and a fitness certificate was given to him. The applicant was also ordered to be examined by the Chief Medical Officer who had also issued the certificate. It is on a consideration of these reports that the applicant was retained in service on the clerical post in the grade of LDC subject to certain conditions and when the applicant insisted that he should be retained as Store Superintendent/Store Foreman and his pay should be protected, he was retired from service w.e.f. 1st February, 1999.

It is true that persons with disability can now avail of the benefits provided under the Disabilities Act but even prior to its enforcement with effect from 1st January 1996, the Constitution provided remedy and relief to the persons with disability when their rights were violated or denied.

The fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which states that "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India", is important for this purpose. It implies that only equals must be treated as equals and unequals may not be treated as equals which makes it the constitutional responsibility of the State to ensure that the systemic and historical conditions of disadvantaged classes of persons are taken into account in providing equal status and equal opportunities. Simply put, this notion of equality means that the laws may not have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment, historical reasons or any other circumstance, in the same position and hence, the varying needs of different classes of persons may require separate treatment - the only condition being that the classification for separate treatment should be rational and must further the objective of that law and be linked with it. The right of the persons with disabilities, against any discrimination, which is on the basis of disability of the person, is therefore, within this mandate of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is under this constitutional mandate of equality that even before the Disability Statutes were passed, many persons with disabilities, their organizations or petitioners in public interest approached the Courts for their right to equality and right against arbitrary discrimination.

To illustrate, we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of Blind Vs. Union Public Service Commission, AIR 1993 SC 1916. The Writ Petition was filed against discrimination of visually impaired persons in competing for the coveted civil services of the country, and for the government to be directed to permit otherwise qualified blind candidates to appear in the selection examination. The Supreme Court not only allowed the petition, but also directed the government to allow them to write the examination in Braille or with the help of a scribe. The Supreme Court also responded to the Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the treatment meted out to persons with mental disabilities in institutions for their care and treatment and laid down guidelines on their living conditions, education, training and rehabilitation facilities in such institutions. In this connection, reference may be made to the following decisions: Rakesh Chandra Narayan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 348, B.R. Kapoor Vs. Union of India, AIR 190 SC 662; Veena Sethi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors,. (1982) 2 SCC 5833 and Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 204.

Article 21 of the Constitution also protects the rights to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life and persons with disability were given protection under this Article of the Constitution. In this context reference may be made to the famous case of Narendra Kumar Chandla Vs. State of Haryana & Ors,. (1994) 4 SCC 460 which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court prior to the enforcement of the Disabilities Act. This was a case of a Sub-Station Attendant of the Haryana State Electricity Board in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 who unfortunately had to be operated in Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay and was thereafter discharged but his right arm was completely amputated. The Electricity Board absorbed him as Carrier Attendant in the lesser pay scale of Rs.825-1300. Feeling dissatisfied, he approached the High Court but his petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court while granting relief of protection of last pay scale observed :-

"Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. Asking the appellant to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a matriculate, he is eligible for the post of LDC. For LDC, apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as an LDC. Admittedly on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Necessarily, therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been rehabilitated in the post of LDC we direct the respondent to appoint him to the post of LDC protecting his scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary." (emphasis supplied)

We must make reference to two other cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered prior to the enforcement of the Disabilities Act. In Anand Bihari & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the question whether a State Road Transport Corporation can retire the bus drivers on the ground of their defective or sub-normal eyesight developed during the course of the employment. The Court held that termination of service was unjustified, inequitable and discriminatory. It was impressed by the Supreme Court that service conditions of the bus drivers must provide adequate safeguards since such bus drivers developed defective eyesight or sub-normal eyesight because of the occupational hazards. A scheme was directed to be framed for providing alternative jobs along with the retirement benefits and for payment of additional compensation proportionate to the length of service rendered by them, in case of non-availability of jobs.

In the case of Rameshwar Dass & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) 3 SC 285, the Supreme Court while considering the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Anand Bihari (supra) observed as follows :-

"It appears that some of the appellants suffered serious injuries during the course of their employment which incapacitated them from performing their duties. Initially, they were transferred to lighter duties, but while they were working on those posts, they were retired from service on the ground that they were medically unfit. From the written submission filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court, it appears that the terminal benefits have been paid to them. If the judgment of this Court in Anand Bihar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. (1991) 1 SCC 731, is read in its proper context and spirit, then it has to be held that this Court impressed on the State Road Transport Corporation to first provide for alternative jobs to such drivers who have become medically unfit for heavy vehicles. A direction for payment of additional compensation was given only when it is not possible at all in the existing circumstances to provide alternative jobs to such drivers. It need not be pointed out that the authorities of the Corporation should not take recourse only to the payment of the additional compensation without first examining whether such drivers could be put on alternative jobs.

Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, we direct the respondents to apply their mind properly to the question whether the appellants who have suffered injuries and have become medically unfit can be put to some alternative jobs by way of rehabilitation. The question of payment for additional compensation will arise only when it is not possible to provide alternative jobs to them or some of them."

We may also mention that the First International Forum for Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly is a landmark, for Article 25 of the Declaration states that each person has, "the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, and other lack of livelihood in the circumstances beyond his control. In the year 1971, the General Assembly stipulated that mentally retarded persons be accorded the same rights as other human beings, as well as special rights corresponding to their needs in the medical, educational and social fields; and in 1975 the General Assembly adopted the "Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons" which proclaimed equal civil and political rights of disabled persons, and the subsequent adoption of the standard Rules in the equalization of opportunities for Persons with Disabilities in 1993 served as an instrument for policy making and a basis for technical and economic cooperation. The evaluation of these international standards relating specifically to disability reflects on the move to place the rights of persons with disabilities within the category of Universal Human Rights.

It was also realised that the disabled need adequate protection through appropriate Legislation. A meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons 1993-2002 was then convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region. It was held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 and it adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. India was a signatory to this promulgation and accordingly the Bill was introduced for this purpose and ultimately the Disabilities Act was enacted.

The Statement of object and reasons to the Disabilities Act which was appended to the Bill reads as under:-

"The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. India is a signatory to the said proclamation and it is necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following :-

(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities;

(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-à-vis, non-disabled persons;

(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;

(v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and

(vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream.

Accordingly, it is proposed to provide inter alia for the constitution of Co-ordination Committees and Executive Committees at the Central and State levels to carry out the various functions assigned to them. Within the limits of their economic capacity and development the appropriate Governments and the local authorities will have to undertake various measures for the prevention and early detection of disabilities, creation of barrier-free environment, provision for rehabilitation services, etc. The Bill also provides for education, employment and vocational training, reservation in identified posts, research and manpower development, establishment of homes for persons with severe disabilities, etc. For effective implementation of the provision of the Bill, appointment of the Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities at the Central level and Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities at the State level clothed with powers to monitor the funds disbursed by the Central and State governments and also to take steps to safeguard the rights of the persons with disabilities is also envisaged."

The Disabilities Act deals with prevention of early detection of disabilities, education, employment, affirmative action, non-discrimination, research and manpower development, recommendation of institutions for persons with disabilities, institutions for persons with severe disabilities, social security and other miscellaneous provisions.

Section 47 of the Disabilities Act which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition is quoted below:-

" Non-discrimination in Government employment.- (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

Section 2(k) defines the ''Establishment' to mean a Corporation established by or under a Central Provincial or State, or an authority, or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government, or a local authority or as defined in Section 167 of the Companies Act, 1956 and it includes departments of a Government. Section 2(i) defines ''disability' to mean blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation and mental illness. "Person with disability" has also been defined to mean a person suffering not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a Medical Authority.

It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Ground Water Board Division is an ''establishment' and that the applicant had acquired disability. The provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act are, therefore, clearly applicable. It provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires disability during his service, provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, then he can be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The intention of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act is very loud and clear that the service of a person who acquires disability during service should not be dispensed with. The purpose is not far to seek as when the objective of the enactment is to provide proper and adequate opportunities to the disabled in the field of education, employment etc., it is obvious that those who are already in employment should not be uprooted merely because they have incurred disability during service. Their service has to be protected if they acquire disability.

Section 47 of the Disabilities Act was comprehensively analysed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1623 and it was observed as follows:-

"Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. (emphasis supplied)

The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain 2004 AIR SCW 4577 wherein it was held as follows:-

"Sub-section (1) of Section 47 in clear terms provides that there cannot be any discrimination in Government employments and no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee whatsoever during his service.

It is, therefore, clear that a person who has acquired disability during his service is sought to be specifically protected under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, the language of which is clearly mandatory in nature. It is a piece of social beneficial enactment giving the disabled persons equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation. It can be said that it provides succor to the needy.

We must also not forget that each year 3rd December is celebrated as International Day of Disabled Persons. On 3rd December, 1999, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, came out with its policy decisions and welfare measures taken to assuage the feelings of disabled persons. These messages reflect the commitment of Government to strive for the betterment of the disabled persons. It was widely accepted that disabled persons needed to be treated as valued member of the society who can contribute to the development and progress of the country and that they do not need our sympathy or pity but an opportunity to employment. In fact 2002 was declared as the year for the disabled.

It is in the light of the aforesaid observations that we have to examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions of Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules and also in view of the fact that the applicant had received compensation for the loss suffered, there was no occasion to protect his pay. In effect what is sought to be contended is that the applicant had been given advance increment for the number of years of service rendered on the post of DCM while fixing his pay in the grade of LDC as provided for in Fundamental Rule 22 and the said pay could not under any circumstances, exceed the maximum of the scale for the post of LDC. It was, therefore, not possible to place the applicant in the pay scale of DCM.

We shall first deal with the submission relating to payment of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Singh (supra) held that mere grant of invalidity pension cannot be made a ground to deny protection given under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. It was observed as follows:-

"We have to notice one more aspect in relation to the appellant getting invalidity pension as per Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The Act is a special legislation dealing with persons with disabilities, protection of rights and full participation to them. It being a special enactment, doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply. Hence Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules cannot override Section 47 of the Act. Further Section 72 of the Act also supports the case of the appellant, which reads :-

72, Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. -- The provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder, enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities.

Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of superannuation, which ever is earlier. It appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the effect of other provision of Section 47 of the Act." (emphasis supplied).

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1864/2000 arising out of SLP (C) 7997/99 observed as follows:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our attention Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities etc.) Act, 1995.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of respondent No.1 to employ the appellant in Class IV post. If no such post exists, then by virtue of Section 47 of the said Act, a supernumerary post shall be created within eight weeks from today and employment given to the appellant with such measures of relief as the appellant with such measures of relief as the appellant may be entitled to."

The Delhi High Court, in Writ Petition No. 5503 of 1999 decided on 13.8.2002 (Shri Dharambir Swaroop Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation), in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, observed that it was no more open for the respondent to contend that as the workman had been paid compensation on medical ground and compensation on the ground of disablement, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement in view of the specific provision of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act and that even if the above amount was paid under the scheme, the petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that as the applicant had received compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, there was no occasion for the petitioners to protect his pay.

We are also of the opinion that the conditions stipulated in Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim for protection of the last pay drawn by him as DCM. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Singh (supra) after noticing the provisions of Section 72 of the Disabilities Act had clearly observed that the Disabilities Act was a special legislation dealing with the persons with disabilities, protection of rights and full participation to them. Thus, in our view the provisions of Section 47 will clearly override Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the applicant had been given the advance increments taking into consideration the number of years of service rendered on the post of DCM, the protection of last pay cannot be given has to be rejected. This would not only be in conformity with the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act but would also be in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court, to which we have referred above, rendered prior to the enforcement of the Disabilities Act wherein such applicants were clearly entitled to protection of the last pay drawn.

There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal granting protection of the last pay drawn by the appellant as DCM even though he was continued as LDC.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also very feebly submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the retirement order. In our considered opinion, this contention is dependent upon the fact whether the applicant was entitled to the protection of the last pay drawn by him as DCM as the applicant had been retired merely on the ground that he insisted upon protection of his last pay. The records clearly reveal that after receipt of the communication dated 5th January, 1998, the applicant joined as LDC but had made a detailed representation to the authorities to protect his pay by retaining him in service as Store Superintendent/Store Foreman and even when he was informed by the authorities by the letter dated 21st July, 1998 that his pay cannot be protected, the applicant again made a request for protection of pay so that he could support his family but the department issued the order dated 1st February, 1999 by which the applicant was retired. We have upheld the order of the Tribunal granting pay protection to the applicant and, therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as the applicant had merely been insisting for grant of benefits due to him in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that the applicant was not entitled to any relief as he had not suffered the injury ''during the course of employment'. This contention cannot be accepted. In the first instance such a plea was not raised before the Tribunal and nor has such a ground been taken in the petition and it is only during the course of the argument that such a plea has been taken. A perusal of the Original Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, however, clearly shows that after completing the tubewell work, the petitioner met with the accident when he was returning back. Thus, it cannot be said that the injury was not caused ''during the course of employment'.

Even otherwise, we are unable to accept such a contention because if we agree to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that ''during his service' has to be read or be substituted by ''during the course of his employment' then the Court will be substituting the words which the Legislature in its wisdom has not used in the section. The Legislature has consciously used the word ''disability during his service' in Section 47 of the Disabilities Act and has not defined that the disability must be one which should occur ''during the course of employment'. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that Section 47 of the Disabilities Act does not require that the person must suffer the disability ''during the course of employment' and even if he suffers the disability during the period of service but outside the course of employment then too he is entitled to the protection. This view was also taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Satya Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2005) 1 PDD (CC) 398 with which we entirely agree.

Before parting with this case we must not forget to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. Vs. M/s. Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2491. In the said case vast sum of money had been collected by the Banks in rounding up of interest rates under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. This was declared to be illegal by the Supreme Court but it was observed that by directing the Union of India to refund the excess amount collected through the Banks and consequently ask the Banks to refund the same to the borrowers would take a long time and, therefore, it was thought proper to create a fund for the benefit of the disadvantaged people as it was found that despite the progressive stand of the Court and the initiatives taken by the Government, the implementation of the Disabilities Act was far from satisfactory and that the disabled were victims of discrimination in spite of beneficial provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, in larger interest, created a fund for this purpose and the excess amount collected was directed to be deposited in the said fund. It also recommended to the Central Government, with a view to effectively implement the provisions of the Disabilities Act, to amend the same by providing for creation of such a fund.

We have referred to the aforesaid decision only to emphasise that time and again it has been pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every endeavour must be made to ensure that the disabled are able to reap the benefit of the Disabilities Act.

We have not been able to find merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.-4.1.2006
NSC/GS

Supreme Court Judgement : Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr | 13 Feb 2003 | Section 47 of PWD Act 1995

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shivaraj V. Patil, and Hon'ble Justice H.K. Sema

Case No.: Appeal (civil)  1789 of 2000

Caste Title:   Kunal Singh  Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Date of Judgement:  13 February 2003

Act/Law: Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995

JUDGMENT:

By Shivaraj V. Patil, J.

The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Special Service Bureau (for short 'the SSB'). When he was on duty, he suffered an injury in his left leg. The medical aid given to him did not help. Ultimately, his left leg was amputated on account of gangrene which had developed from the injury. He was invalidated from service by the respondents on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, Kullu under which he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service as per order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Shamshi (Kullu). He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he could discharge keeping in view the extent of his disability and having due regard to 17 years of his unblemished service. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that he had been permanently invalidated on the basis of the medical opinion and as such there was no scope for him to continue any further in service of any kind in the SSB. Hence, this appeal is filed assailing the impugned order. It appears, before the High Court, no argument was advanced specifically in support of the writ petition on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'). However, a specific ground is raised in this appeal based on Section 47 of the Act. Since it is a pure question of law, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the contentions including the one based on Section 47 of the Act.

2.    The learned counsel for the appellant, pointing to few relevant definitions contained in Section 2 and Section 47 of the Act, urged that on the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the object and purpose of the Act, relief ought to have been granted as sought in the writ petition.

3.    In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions in support and justification of the impugned order. He also drew our attention to Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 under which the appellant is granted invalidity pension which he is drawing. According to him, in view of the relevant definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, the appellant is not a person with disability as he is permanently incapacitated. He also drew our attention in support of his argument to Section 2(o) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 to make a distinction.

For proper appreciation of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is useful and necessary to notice few definitions as contained in Section 2 and Section 47 of the Act.

"2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) to (d)..............................

(e) "Cerebral palsy" means a group of non-progressive conditions of a person characterized by abnormal motor control posture resulting from brain insult or injuries occurring in the pre-natal, peri-natal or infant period of development;

(f) to (h).............................

(i) "disability" means-

(i) to (iv).......................

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) to (vii).....................

(j) ..................................

(k) "establishment" means a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of a Government;

(l) to (n).............................

(o) "locomotor disability" means disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs or any form of cerebral palsy."

(p) to (s)..............................

(t) "persons with disability" means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority;

(u) to (v)..............................

(w) "rehabilitation" refers to a process aimed at enabling persons with disabilities to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory, intellectual, psychiatric or social functional levels;

 

"47. Non-discrimination in Government employments - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service;

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits;

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, his disability falls under Section 2(i)(v), namely locomotor disability. What is meant by locomotor disability is stated in Section 2(o). There is no dispute that the Act applies to the establishment of the respondents and this establishment is not exempted under any notification issued under Section 47 of the Act. "Persons with disability" means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority as per the definition given under Section 2(t).

Short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Section 47 of the Act.

From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the disability suffered by the appellant is covered by Section 2(i)(v) read with Section 2(o) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that this disability was acquired by the appellant during his service. Under Section 2 "disability" and "person with disability" are separately defined and they are distinct. We may also notice some provisions in Chapter VI of the Act relating to employment. Section 32 deals with identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. Section 33 speaks of reservation of such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Section 38 requires the appropriate Governments and local authorities to formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. Section 47 is included in Chapter VIII of the Act. Chapter VI deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities including identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for such persons. Under this Chapter, reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities is made for initial appointments. Section 47 in Chapter VIII deals with an employee of an establishment who acquires a disability during his service.

The need for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and to help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. To realize objective that people with disabilities should have equal opportunities and keeping their hopes and aspirations in view a meeting called the 'Meet to Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons' was held in Beijing in the first week of December, 1992 by the Asian and Pacific countries to ensure 'full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions'. This Meeting was held by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific. A Proclamation was adopted in the said meeting. India was a signatory to the said Proclamation and they agreed to give effect to the same. Pursuant thereto this Act was enacted, which came into force on 1st January, 1996. The Act provides some sort of succor to the disabled persons. 

Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. 

An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of definition given in Section 2(t) of the Act that benefit of Section 47 is not available to the appellant as he has suffered permanent invalidity cannot be accepted. Because, the appellant was an employee, who has acquired 'disability' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act and not a person with disability.

We have to notice one more aspect in relation to the appellant getting invalidity pension as per Rule 38 of the CCS Pensions Rules. The Act is a special Legislation dealing with persons with disabilities to provide equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation to them. It being a special enactment, doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply. Hence Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules cannot override Section 47 of the Act. Further Section 72 of the Act also supports the case of the appellant, which reads: - "72. Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. - The provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder, enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities."

Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the effect of other provisions of Section 47 of the Act.

For the reasons stated and discussions made above, the appeal deserves to be accepted. Hence the impugned order affirming the order of termination of services of the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We direct the respondents to give relief in terms of Section 47 of the Act.

There shall be no order as to costs.

--------------