The Section 47 PwD Act CRPF driver compensation ruling marks a significant decision on the rights of employees who acquire disabilities during service. The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for terminating a constable-driver after he developed a visual disability while on duty. A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the Union of India to pay ₹1.25 crore as compensation. The amount covers back wages, interest, and litigation costs. Since the employee has already retired, the Court replaced the High Court’s reinstatement order with monetary compensation.
Driver Developed Disability During Service
Bali Ram joined the CRPF as a driver in 1985. In 1996, doctors diagnosed him with Disseminated Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patches with Macular Involvement. The condition caused complete blindness in his left eye and partial vision loss in his right eye.
A CRPF medical board declared him permanently unfit for combatant duties. The department discharged him from service on March 11, 1998. Authorities later rejected his requests for continued service and financial benefits.
Supreme Court Upholds Protection Under Section 47
The Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment. The Bench held that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 protected the respondent.
The Court explained that Section 47 requires employers to retain an employee who acquires a disability during service. If the employee cannot continue in the same role, the employer must provide an alternative post with the same pay and service benefits. If no suitable post exists, the employer must create a supernumerary position.
The Section 47 PwD Act CRPF driver compensation judgment reaffirmed that government departments cannot remove employees merely because they acquire disabilities during service.
2002 Exemption Could Not Apply Retrospectively
The Union Government argued that a 2002 notification exempted CRPF combatant personnel from Section 47.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It held that Bali Ram lost his job in 1998, four years before the exemption came into force. Therefore, the government could not use a later notification to take away rights that had already accrued under the 1995 Act.
Court Rejects Waiver Argument
The CRPF argued that Bali Ram had sought only a disability pension and had waived his right to reinstatement.
The Court disagreed. It found no evidence that the authorities had informed him about his legal right to alternative employment under the PwD Act before he opted for a disability pension.
The Bench also rejected the government’s claim that his disability may not have arisen during service. It noted that no medical record showed any visual impairment when he joined the CRPF.
“No Work, No Pay” Principle Did Not Apply
The Supreme Court refused to apply the “no work, no pay” principle. The Bench observed that Bali Ram remained unemployed because the authorities violated the law. Therefore, they could not deny him financial relief based on their own wrongful actions.
₹1.25 Crore Compensation and Legal Aid Support
Since Bali Ram had already reached the age of superannuation, the Court held that reinstatement was no longer practical.
Instead, it awarded him ₹1.25 crore as a lump sum to compensate for lost wages, interest, litigation expenses, and the hardship caused by years of unlawful termination.
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to transfer the compensation electronically within eight weeks. It also instructed the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority in Himachal Pradesh to assist the visually impaired respondent in managing the compensation and meeting his future medical needs.
