Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the termination of the petitioner, a permanent employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). The petitioner, who had been employed since 2003, acquired a serious brain disease in April 2018 requiring surgery and prolonged leave. After exhausting all leave, he obtained a fitness certificate from his treating doctor in November 2019 and sought to rejoin duty. Instead of allowing him to resume work, the employer directed multiple medical examinations over the following years. The Civil Surgeon, Satara, examined him in January 2021, and later the Standing Medical Board, Sangli, certified him fit for light duty in April 2021, with a review after one year. The respondent No. 3 even wrote to the Chief Engineer requesting creation of a supernumerary post under section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. However, the employer insisted on further examinations. Dr. S. Jayaram, Medical Advisor of MSEDCL, certified him fit for light duty not involving verbal communication in September 2021, but the employer sought re-examination by the Standing Medical Board to determine ability to communicate, write, and read. The Board subsequently declared him unfit for duty in June 2022 due to inability to communicate verbally following a cerebrovascular accident. The petitioner was terminated effective from June 29, 2022, vide order dated April 6, 2023. The petitioner later obtained a disability certificate from District Civil Hospital, Satara, in November 2023, diagnosing speech and language disability, a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The respondents contended that the termination was in accordance with the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulation, 2005, which permits termination on permanent medical unfitness, and argued that the Disabilities Act, 2016, might not apply if the disability hinders efficient discharge of duties. They also pointed out that the petitioner had already received a promotion benefit related to a pre-existing hearing disability. The court, after hearing both sides, noted that the case is governed by the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016. It referred to an earlier Division Bench judgment in Vikas Keng v. State of Maharashtra, which extensively discussed the legal framework, including section 47 of the 1995 Act and the objectives of the 2016 Act as a beneficial legislation implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The judgment excerpt ends during the court’s discussion of these legal provisions, without recording the final operative order. Therefore, the final decision is not ascertainable from the available text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination on Medical Grounds - Non-discrimination and Reasonable Accommodation - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The High Court examined whether the termination of an employee who acquired a speech and language disability during service violated the 2016 Act, which mandates that no employee shall be dispensed with or reduced in rank due to disability and requires shifting to an alternative post or creation of a supernumerary post. The Court referred to the beneficial nature of the Act and its incorporation of the UN Convention principles. (Paras 1-10)
B) Statutory Interpretation - Evolution of Disability Law - Scope of Protection Under the 2016 Act - The Court discussed the legislative history from the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that the 2016 Act was enacted to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Section 47 of the 1995 Act, which prohibited discrimination in government employment and provided for alternative posting or supernumerary post, was highlighted as the precursor to the broader protections under the 2016 Act. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of the petitioner’s service on medical grounds is unlawful under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with appropriate accommodation for his disability
Law Points
- No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank
- an employee who acquires a disability during his service
- If an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post
- could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits
- If not possible to adjust
- 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 2016 Act is a beneficial Legislation that prioritizes and recognizes the benefits provided for under the 2016 Act
- It confers higher benefits and provides for additional categories of disability that it seeks to protect
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 11
Writ Petition No. 1671 of 2024 along with Interim Application (Stamp) No. 470 of 2025
M. S. Karnik, N. R. Borkar
Mr. Sumant Deshpande for Petitioner; Mr. Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Reshmarani Nathani and Ms. Niharika Singh instructed by Little & Co. for Respondents No. 1 to 3; Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 4
Dnyaneshwar Lavhaji Kalukhe
Director (Human Resource), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination of the petitioner's service on medical grounds.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the termination order dated 6th April 2023 and reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Termination was effected despite the petitioner's disabilities and conflicting medical certificates, allegedly in violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner's service violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against discrimination in employment due to disability acquired during service.
Whether the employer's insistence on medical re-examinations and rejection of fitness certificates for light duty amounts to non-compliance with the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's submission: The termination order dated 6th April 2023 is illegal and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as the employer failed to provide alternative employment or supernumerary post despite his disability acquired during service.
Respondents' submission: The petitioner was terminated in compliance with the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulation, 2005 after being declared permanently medically unfit by the Standing Medical Board; the petitioner had already received disability benefits through promotion; the Disabilities Act is not attracted if health condition hinders efficient discharge of duties.
Judgment Excerpts
The present case is governed by the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016.
Section 47 of the 1995 Act under Chapter VII with the heading “non-discrimination”, provided that there shall be no discrimination in Government employment.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in MSEDCL on 27th August 2003 and made permanent on 30th August 2004. On 17th April 2018, he became unwell and was diagnosed with a serious brain disease, leading to surgery at Sahyadri Hospital, Pune, and discharge on 5th June 2018. After exhausting his leave, he obtained a fitness certificate on 26th November 2019 and sought to rejoin duty. Instead, he was directed to undergo medical examination by the Civil Surgeon, Satara, whose report was dated 13th January 2021. The petitioner applied to join duty on 19th January 2021. Respondent No. 3 directed examination by the Standing Medical Board, Sangli, via letter dated 12th March 2021. The Board examined him on 5th and 6th April 2021 and issued a certificate on 23rd April 2021 declaring him fit for light duty with a review after one year. Respondent No. 3 then requested creation of a supernumerary post on 31st May 2021. However, respondent No. 2 directed another examination by Dr. S. Jayaram, MSEDCL's Medical Advisor, who on 30th September 2021 certified him clinically satisfactory and fit for light duty not involving verbal communication. Despite this, respondent No. 3 asked the Standing Medical Board to re-examine him to determine his ability to communicate, write, and read. The Board examined him on 18th and 19th April 2022 and declared him unfit for duty on 29th June 2022 due to inability to communicate with verbal commands. The termination order was passed on 6th April 2023, effective from 29th June 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a disability certificate on 10th November 2023 from District Civil Hospital, Satara, diagnosing speech and language disability. The writ petition was filed in 2024, and an interim application was filed in 2025. The matter was heard on 15th July 2025 and judgment pronounced on 10th October 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: 47
- Constitution of India: 226
