In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of employees who acquire disabilities during service, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a former CRPF constable who was medically invalidated after losing vision. The Court held that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was under a statutory duty to protect the employee under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, as it stood at the time of his discharge.
Modifying the relief granted by the High Court, the Court directed payment of ₹1.25 crore, inclusive of back wages, interest and costs, instead of ordering reinstatement, noting that the employee had already reached the age of superannuation.
Background of the Case
The respondent joined the CRPF in 1985 as a Constable (Driver) after being declared medically fit. More than a decade later, he developed a serious eye condition that left him completely blind in his left eye and with partial vision in his right eye. A Medical Board found him permanently unfit for driving or combat duties, leading to his medical invalidation from service in March 1998.
His request for disability-related benefits was rejected on the ground that the illness was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and he was granted only the benefits available under the applicable rules. He then approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where a Single Judge ruled in his favour, holding that his removal violated Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. The Division Bench later upheld that decision, prompting the Union of India to approach the Supreme Court.
Union of India's Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the Union of India argued that the respondent could not have been retained in service because he was medically declared permanently unfit for any role in the CRPF. It further relied on a Central Government notification issued on 10 September 2002, which exempted combatant personnel of Central Paramilitary Forces from the protection of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
The government also contended that the respondent had never sought reinstatement under the Disabilities Act and had instead accepted pension and other terminal benefits, thereby waiving any such claim. It further submitted that reinstatement was no longer feasible as the respondent had already crossed the age of retirement.
Court's Observations
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, rejected all three objections raised by the Union of India.
The Court first observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not invariably confined to the exact pleadings or prayers where denying relief would perpetuate injustice. It held that in exceptional cases, courts may grant wider relief if the record clearly establishes entitlement and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The Bench observed:
“Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way.”
On the plea of waiver, the Court held that waiver requires an intentional surrender of a known legal right. Since there was no evidence that the respondent knew about his protection under Section 47 or consciously gave it up, the plea was rejected.
“The objection founded on waiver is thoroughly misconceived,”
the Bench held while noting that mere acceptance of pension could not amount to relinquishing a statutory right.
Notification Could Not Apply Retrospectively
A key issue before the Court was whether the 2002 notification exempting CRPF personnel from Section 47 could validate the respondent's medical invalidation that took place in 1998.
The Supreme Court answered in the negative.
It held that delegated legislation, including exemption notifications, ordinarily operates prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. Since the notification came into force several years after the respondent was removed from service, it could not retrospectively legalise an action that was contrary to the statutory protection then available.
The Bench 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.”
The Court also distinguished its earlier decision in Union of India v. Dileep Kumar Singh, noting that in that case the employee had been invalidated after the exemption notification had already come into force.
Duty to Accommodate Employees with Disability
Relying on its earlier judgments in Kunal Singh, Bhagwan Dass and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal, the Court reiterated that Section 47 imposed a mandatory obligation on government employers.
If an employee became disabled during service and could no longer perform the original duties, the employer had to explore alternative employment carrying the same pay and service benefits. If no suitable post was immediately available, the law required creation of a supernumerary post until retirement.
The Bench remarked:
“The appellants were required to find a chair for the respondent, and not wait for the respondent to beg for one.”
The Court further clarified that Section 47 does not require the disability to be attributable to service. What matters is that the disability was acquired during service, making the statutory protection available irrespective of its cause.
Supreme Court's Decision
Although the Court upheld the High Court's finding that the respondent had been wrongly invalidated, it modified the relief because reinstatement had become impossible after the respondent attained the age of superannuation.
Taking into account the prolonged litigation, the respondent's visual impairment, loss of livelihood and the authorities' failure to comply with the statutory mandate, the Court awarded ₹1.25 crore, inclusive of back wages, interest and litigation costs.
The amount has been directed to be paid within eight weeks. The Court also directed the Legal Services Authority in Himachal Pradesh to assist the visually impaired respondent in safely investing part of the compensation and overseeing his future medical needs.
Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. Bali Ram No.850808321
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: 13 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
