The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the protection afforded to disabled employees under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The judgment underscores that an employer cannot terminate an employee who acquires a disability during service without first offering a suitable alternative posting, even if the employee is unfit for their original role. The Court also directed compassionate appointment for the son of the deceased employee, setting aside the earlier rejection based on the employee's termination.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Smt. Mangal Umakant Udawant and her son Milind Umakant Udawant, approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. They challenged the termination of the deceased husband/father, who was employed as a Driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), and sought compassionate appointment for Milind Udawant.
Key Facts
- The deceased was appointed as a Driver with respondent no.3 (MSRTC) on 30.10.1997
- He met with an accident on 02.04.2013 while on duty
- On 12.10.2013, he applied for light work due to his inability to perform his original duties
- The Medical Board examined him and opined that he was unfit for driving but fit for light work
- Despite this, respondent no.3 terminated his services on 06.02.2014
- The deceased passed away on 22.02.2014 due to illness
- The petitioners applied for compassionate appointment on 17.03.2014
- Respondent no.3 rejected the application on 24.03.2014, stating that compassionate appointment is only available if the employee dies while in service
Procedural History
- 17.03.2014: Petitioners filed an application for compassionate appointment
- 24.03.2014: Respondent no.3 rejected the application
- 2020: Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8337 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court
- 01.07.2026: The High Court delivered its judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the termination order dated 06.02.2014
- Quashing of the rejection communication dated 24.03.2014
- Direction to respondent no.3 to include Milind Udawant in the list for compassionate appointment
- Release of leave encashment benefits
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 permits an employer to terminate an employee who acquires a disability during service without first offering a suitable alternative posting, and whether compassionate appointment can be denied on the ground that the employee was terminated.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued:
- The termination of the deceased was contrary to Section 47 of the Act of 1995, which prohibits dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service
- The deceased had applied for light work, and the Medical Board had opined that he was fit for such work, yet respondent no.3 failed to accommodate him
- The rejection of compassionate appointment was unjust, as it was based on the illegal termination of the deceased
For the Respondents
Mr. Dhongade, learned counsel for respondent no.3, contended:
- The scheme of compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who dies while in service
- Since the deceased was terminated, there was no entitlement to compassionate appointment
- The deceased was unfit for his original role, and termination was justified
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which states:
"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."
The Court observed that the Medical Board had clearly opined that the deceased was fit for light work, yet respondent no.3 failed to accommodate him in any suitable post. The termination was thus held to be in violation of Section 47.
Regarding compassionate appointment, the Court noted that the rejection was based on the erroneous premise that the deceased was terminated. Since the termination itself was illegal, the rejection of compassionate appointment could not stand. The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Shaikh Salim Shaikh Amir v. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 6937 of 2017), which dealt with a similar situation and held that an employee cannot be deprived of service merely on the ground of acquiring a disability.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition and passed the following directions:
- The order dated 06.02.2014 terminating the services of the deceased was quashed and set aside
- The communication dated 24.03.2014 rejecting the petitioners' application for compassionate appointment was quashed and set aside
- Respondent no.3 was directed to include Milind Udawant in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds, considering his application as of 24.03.2014
- Respondent no.2 was directed to release the leave encashment benefits to the petitioners within three months from the date of the judgment
- The rule was made absolute in the above terms
What This Means For Similar Cases
Employers Must Comply with Section 47 Before Terminating Disabled Employees
- No Automatic Termination: Employers cannot terminate an employee who acquires a disability during service without first exploring alternative postings. The Court emphasized that Section 47 imposes a mandatory obligation on employers to accommodate disabled employees in suitable roles
- Medical Board Opinion is Binding: If a Medical Board opines that an employee is fit for light work, the employer must act on this opinion and cannot ignore it to justify termination
Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Based on Illegal Termination
- Illegal Termination Does Not Bar Compassionate Appointment: The Court clarified that if an employee is illegally terminated, the rejection of compassionate appointment based on such termination is unsustainable. Employers must ensure that any termination complies with statutory protections before denying compassionate benefits
- Retrospective Benefit: The Court directed that the son's name be included in the compassionate appointment list as of the date of the original rejection, ensuring that the petitioners do not suffer due to the employer's illegal actions
Leave Encashment and Other Benefits Must Be Released Promptly
- Timely Compliance: The Court directed the release of leave encashment benefits within three months, setting a precedent for timely compliance with such directions. Employers must ensure that all statutory benefits are released without delay once a court order is passed
