Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of RPF Constable Seeking Reinstatement After Medical De-categorisation — Railway Authorities Directed to Consider Petitioner for Suitable Alternative Post in Terms of Rules.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Santosh Motiram Chavan, was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) under the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Bilaspur Division of South Eastern Railway on 22.07.2006. He was transferred to Central Railway, Solapur Division at Gulbarga on health grounds on 23.12.2006, and later to Mumbai Division under Respondent No. 3 at LTT on 17.04.2019. On 02.12.2020, the petitioner was medically de-categorised. The respondents did not provide any alternative employment and the petitioner was effectively terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reinstatement and consideration for alternative post. The court held that medical de-categorisation does not automatically terminate employment and the Railway authorities are bound to consider the petitioner for a suitable alternative post in accordance with the rules. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for alternative employment within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Medical De-categorisation - Alternative Employment - Railway Protection Force - A constable medically de-categorised due to health grounds is entitled to be considered for alternative suitable post in terms of Railway Board instructions and not be terminated automatically - Held that the respondents must consider the petitioner for alternative post within a stipulated period (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a Railway Protection Force constable who is medically de-categorised can be denied alternative employment and be terminated without following due process.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for a suitable alternative post within eight weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Medical de-categorisation does not automatically terminate employment
  • Railway authorities must consider alternative post
  • Rule 26 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 72

Writ Petition No. 540 of 2025

2026-04-23

Ravindra V. Ghuge, Hiten S. Venegavkar

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/b. Mr. Samir Singh for the Petitioner; Mr. T.J. Pandian with Mr. Gautam Modanwal and Mr. Prasad Sawant for the Respondent - Railway

Santosh Motiram Chavan

Union of India (Through), The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST; Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner (R.P.F), Mumbai Division, Central Railway; Security Commissioner, Mumbai Division, Central Railway; Assistant Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Kalyan, Mumbai Division, Central Railway

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reinstatement and alternative employment after medical de-categorisation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to the respondents to consider him for alternative suitable post and to set aside the termination.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was medically de-categorised and not provided alternative employment, leading to effective termination.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to alternative employment after medical de-categorisation. Whether the respondents can terminate the petitioner without following due process.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that medical de-categorisation does not automatically terminate employment and he is entitled to alternative post as per rules. Respondents argued that the petitioner was not terminated but was only de-categorised and no alternative post was available.

Ratio Decidendi

Medical de-categorisation does not automatically terminate employment; the employer must consider the employee for alternative suitable post in accordance with the rules.

Judgment Excerpts

The dates and events are undisputed before us. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on an undisclosed date. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 23.04.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of RPF Constable Seeking Reinstatement After Medical De-categorisation — Railway Authorities Directed to Consider Petitioner for Suitable Alternative Post in Terms of Rules.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under COFEPOSA for Non-Placement of Vital Documents. Failure to Place Retraction Statements and Bail Orders Before Detaining Authority Renders Detention Invalid Under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, ...