#disability rights

The CAT Principal Bench held that candidates seeking reservation under the PwD quota must strictly meet the exact locomotor disability specifications (One Arm/One Leg) notified in the recruitment advertisement; a general medical board certification for a different disability category (both legs affected) does not qualify the candidate for the reserved post.

The Delhi HC set aside the Special Court’s dismissal of a disability harassment complaint, holding that ignoring post-RPwD Act allegations made the order unsustainable. It remanded the case for a fresh review under Sections 92 and 84 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

The Calcutta HC affirmed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for a major son with 70% disability, ruling that the father's obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC does not cease on attaining majority. The decision reinforces the statutory right of disabled adult children to support, impacting families across West Bengal.

The tribunal ruled that denying disability family pension based on a conclusory medical opinion of employability violates Rule 54(6); authorities must evaluate the claimant's actual functional capacity to earn a livelihood. This safeguards disabled dependents from arbitrary termination of pension benefits.

The Cuttack Bench of the CAT held that a candidate with 40 % visual loss meets the Category-I benchmark disability, setting aside UPSC’s rejection. The decision clarifies the visual-disability threshold for all Civil Services aspirants.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that reservations for persons with physical disabilities are a horizontal reservation under Article 16(4) and therefore cannot be further earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. This invalidates any sub-reservation scheme that tries to allocate a share of disability seats to SCs, affecting future recruitment drives that combine disability and caste criteria.

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench rules that temporary disability certificates do not disqualify candidates for reserved posts under the RPWD Act, 2016. The judgment clarifies that Section 34(2) protects disabled persons regardless of certificate validity, ensuring equal employment opportunities.

Rajasthan High Court rules that exclusion of a disabled candidate from the final selection list without reason violates principles of natural justice. The court directs reservation of a post for the petitioner, reinforcing employment rights under disability reservation laws.

Supreme Court reinforces Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, mandating employers to accommodate and reinstate employees who acquire disabilities during service, with full back wages and costs. The ruling rejects waiver claims and retrospective exemptions, setting a precedent for disability rights in employment.

MP High Court rules that transfer orders are administrative and immune from judicial interference unless vitiated by malafides, statutory violation, or adverse civil consequences-specifically emphasizing that disability rights must not be overlooked. The court underscores that personal inconvenience or policy violations alone do not warrant interference unless fundamental rights are affected.

Bombay High Court rules that terminating a disabled employee without offering a suitable alternative posting breaches Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The Court directed compassionate appointment for the deceased employee’s son and release of leave encashment benefits, reinforcing disability rights in employment.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that employees with certified 40% permanent disability must have their transfer requests reconsidered under Clause 28 of the state’s transfer policy, even when administrative exigency is claimed. This ruling reinforces the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in public employment and sets a binding precedent for disability-sensitive administrative decisions across state departments.

MP High Court directs reconsideration of a transfer order for a disabled employee, emphasizing that medical hardship of the employee and their dependent spouse, along with pending representations, must be factored into administrative decisions. The ruling reinforces the duty of reasonable accommodation under Article 14 for government employees with disabilities.

MP High Court rules that disqualifying a disabled candidate based on an uncommunicated medical report violates procedural fairness. The court mandates re-examination by an authorized board, reinforcing the right to a fair hearing in reservation claims.

Himachal Pradesh High Court invalidated the state recruitment law for violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, directing regularization of disabled employees from their original appointment date. The ruling reinforces the supremacy of central disability rights legislation over conflicting state laws, impacting all similarly placed employees.