Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of CRPF Employee Denied Promotion Due to Mental Disability - Notification Exempting Combatant Personnel from Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Does Not Apply to Ministerial Staff. The court held that the petitioner, a ministerial employee, is entitled to protection under Section 47 despite the exemption notification.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shyamkumar Pandurang Wankhede, was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 8 June 1988. He was hospitalized from 4 July 1999 to 19 July 1999 and diagnosed with Schizoaffective Psychosis. On 12 June 2000, he was boarded out of service on the ground of 80% mental disability. He challenged the removal order in Writ Petition 4709/2007 before the High Court at Guwahati, which quashed the order and directed his reinstatement. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated but was denied promotion to the rank of Assistant Commander (Ministerial) on the ground that he did not satisfy the medical eligibility condition of SHAPE-1 category. The respondents relied on a Government of India Notification dated 10 September 2002, which exempted all categories of posts of 'Combatant Personnel' of CRPF from the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner challenged the communication-cum-order dated 4 July 2018 denying him the benefit of Section 47. The court examined the notification and found that it specifically exempts combatant personnel, not ministerial staff. Since the petitioner held a ministerial post, the notification did not apply to him. The court held that the petitioner is a person with disability under the Act and is entitled to the protection of Section 47, which mandates that no employee acquiring a disability during service shall be deprived of promotion or other benefits. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's promotion in accordance with law, taking into account the provisions of the Act.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Disability Rights - Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Exemption Notification - The petitioner, a ministerial employee of CRPF, was denied promotion to Assistant Commander (Ministerial) on the ground that he did not satisfy SHAPE-1 medical category due to Schizoaffective Psychosis. The respondents relied on a notification exempting combatant personnel from Section 47. The court held that the notification applies only to combatant posts, not ministerial posts, and thus the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 47. (Paras 1-10)

B) Service Law - Medical Disability - Promotion - The petitioner was boarded out in 2000 due to 80% mental disability but was reinstated by the Guwahati High Court. The respondents later denied promotion citing medical ineligibility. The court held that since the petitioner is a person with disability under the Act, the respondents cannot deny him promotion solely on medical grounds without considering reasonable accommodation. (Paras 2-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, a ministerial employee of CRPF, is entitled to the protection of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, despite the Government of India Notification dated 10-9-2002 exempting combatant personnel from the said provision.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication-cum-order dated 04-07-2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's promotion to the rank of Assistant Commander (Ministerial) in accordance with law, taking into account the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Law Points

  • Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities
  • Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act
  • 1995
  • Government of India Notification dated 10-9-2002
  • Exemption for Combatant Personnel
  • Ministerial Posts
  • Medical Eligibility SHAPE-1
  • Schizoaffective Psychosis
  • Mental Disability
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 58

WRIT PETITION NO.6345 OF 2018

2023-05-02

ROHIT B. DEO, MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI

Mrs. Rani G. Nitnaware for Petitioner, Mrs. Mugdha R. Chandurkar for Respondents 1 to 4

Shri Shyamkumar S/o. Pandurang Wankhede

Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry Home Affairs, New Delhi; The Director General of Police, Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi; The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ajmer, Rajasthan; The Director General of Police, Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, MIDC, Hingana, Dist. Nagpur

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging denial of promotion and protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks quashing of communication-cum-order dated 04-07-2018 and direction to extend benefits of Section 47 of the Act of 1995.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was denied promotion to Assistant Commander (Ministerial) on medical grounds and was not extended protection under Section 47 of the Act of 1995.

Previous Decisions

The petitioner was boarded out in 2000, but the Guwahati High Court quashed the removal order in Writ Petition 4709/2007.

Issues

Whether the petitioner, a ministerial employee of CRPF, is entitled to the protection of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, despite the exemption notification for combatant personnel. Whether the denial of promotion on medical grounds is valid when the petitioner is a person with disability under the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the exemption notification dated 10-9-2002 applies only to combatant personnel, not ministerial staff, and thus he is entitled to Section 47 protection. Respondents argued that all posts in CRPF are combatant and the notification exempts all categories of combatant personnel.

Ratio Decidendi

The Government of India Notification dated 10-9-2002 exempts only combatant personnel of CRPF from Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Ministerial staff are not combatant personnel and are entitled to the protection of Section 47. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion solely on medical grounds without considering reasonable accommodation under the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner who is superannuated from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is assailing, inter alia, the communication-cum-order dated 04-7-2018 (Annexure-A) whereby the petitioner is not extended the protective umbrella of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act of 1995) on the premise that all categories of posts of 'Combatant Personnel' of the CRPF are exempted from the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 in view of the Government of India Notification dated 10-9-2002.

Procedural History

The petitioner was appointed in 1988, hospitalized in 1999, boarded out in 2000, challenged removal in Guwahati High Court in 2007, reinstated, then denied promotion in 2018, leading to this writ petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Section 47
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Consent Vitiation. Promise to Marry Not Proven as Sole Basis for Sexual Relations Under Section 376 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Shifting of CL III License for Restaurant and Bar Abutting National Highway. Petitioner's Objection Based on Distance from Religious Place Rejected as License Was Already Granted and No Statutory Viola...