SC upholds relief for CRPF constable removed after losing vision, grants Rs 1.25 crore compensation
New Delhi, July 13
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Himachal Pradesh High Court verdict holding that the Central Reserve Police Force had illegally invalided a constable after he lost vision during service, saying authorities were under a statutory duty to accommodate him instead of removing him from employment.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih dismissed an appeal filed by the Union government and the CRPF, while modifying the relief granted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court by awarding the respondent, Bali Ram, a lump sum compensation of Rs 1.25 crore, inclusive of back wages, interest, and litigation costs.
The top court held that the respondent, a CRPF constable (driver), acquired visual disability while in service in 1996 and was medically invalidated in 1998 in violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
"The duty imposed by the PwD Act being mandatory and not discretionary, the law did not leave the appellants (authorities) with an option to discharge their duty at their convenience. Appellants were required to find a chair for the respondent, and not wait for the respondent to beg for one," the Justice Datta-led Bench said.
The judgment recorded that after the constable developed an ophthalmic condition, he was declared permanently unfit for driving and combatant duties by the Medical Board and was medically invalidated from service on March 11, 1998.
Rejecting the Centre's contention that the CRPF stood exempt from Section 47 of the PwD Act by virtue of a 2002 notification, the apex court held that the exemption operated only prospectively and could not validate an action that had already become illegal.
Referring to the conduct of the CRPF, the bench said it was difficult to understand how the paramilitary force ignored the statutory mandate despite being an instrumentality of the state.
"It is intriguing that the CRPF... failed to respond in time. Being an instrumentality of the state, it was expected to be fully cognisant of the provisions of the PwD Act and the statutory protection conferred upon the respondent under Section 47 thereof," the judgment said.
"By not offering alternate posting, the appellants failed in their role as a model employer and converted a welfare provision into a dead letter," the top court remarked.
Noting that the respondent had remained out of service for nearly three decades and had suffered prolonged financial hardship despite succeeding before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2008, the Supreme Court said reinstatement was no longer feasible as he had already attained the age of superannuation.
"The situation of non-employment of the respondent is entirely the appellants' creation. Respondent is, thus, entitled to full back wages and the appellants must bear the consequences of their own inaction," it said.
While affirming the finding that the respondent's medical invalidation was illegal, the apex court modified the relief granted by the High Court and directed the Union government and the CRPF to pay him a consolidated sum of Rs 1.25 crore within eight weeks. It also directed the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority, Kangra, to assist the visually impaired respondent in safely investing part of the compensation and overseeing his future medical needs.
— IANS
Reader Comments
As someone working in corporate HR, this judgment is a wake-up call. The SC's remark about the CRPF being an 'instrumentality of the state' is spot on. Section 47 of the PwD Act was meant to protect employees like Bali Ram. Glad the court dismissed the exemption notification as retrospective. Organizations need to do better with reasonable accommodations.
Sitting here thinking about the financial hardship this man went through since 1998 - feeding a family, paying for medical treatment, all while being denied a simple desk job that the CRPF could have easily provided. The SC's line that they 'converted a welfare provision into a dead letter' is chillingly accurate. Big salute to the Himachal HC for catching this in 2008 and to the SC for finally closing the loop. 👏
Really impressed with the practical step by the SC - directing the legal services authority to help him invest the compensation wisely. Too often in India, disability compensation is eaten up by medical bills and family pressures. This is thoughtful jurisprudence.
However, let's not forget the systemic issue: why did a constable have to fight for 27 years? The system is broken.
My father was a government servant who developed a similar eye condition. We struggled for years to get him proper accommodation. This judgment gives me some relief knowing that the law is finally being enforced properly. But I wish the compensation had come earlier when it could have actually helped him rebuild his life. The CRPF should be ashamed of their callous attitude. 😐
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.