# Union of India & Ors v. Bali Ram No. 850808321

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 689
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-ors-v-bali-ram-no-850808321-39304
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Whether the Single Judge rightly enforced the appellants' duty
under s.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by directing
inter alia that he be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits; whether the Division Bench was grossly wrong in not
reversing such directions.
Headnotes†
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.47 - RespondentConstable (Driver) in CRPF, was medically invalidated from
service on account of an ophthalmic condition resulting in
complete blindness in the left eye and partial impairment
of vision in the right eye - His claim seeking grant of full
financial and service benefits upon his invalidation from
service was rejected holding that he was entitled only to
a lump-sum payment of Rs.15,000/- in accordance with the
applicable rules - Respondent filed writ petition for grant of
invalid/disability pension on account of 100% disability with
consequential benefits and interest - Allowed by Single Judge
directing that he be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits - Appeal filed by appellants, dismissed by Division
Bench - Challenge to - Appellants contend that the Single
Judge erroneously placed reliance upon s.47, PwD Act as in
view of the notification dtd.10.09.2002 issued by Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment in exercise of the powers
conferred by proviso to s.47, PwD Act, all categories of
combatant personnel of the Central Para Military Forces
including the CRPF were exempted from the application of
* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
219
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
the said provision; respondent waived his statutory rights
u/s.47, PwD Act as he did not seek any relief founded
thereupon, nor did he ever pray for reinstatement in service
instead, he accepted pension and other benefits extended
to him thus, he cannot subsequently seek, nor could the
Court grant, relief of reinstatement and continuation in
service founded upon a statutory provision that was
neither invoked by him nor attracted in the given factual
scenario:
Held: 1.1 The statutory mandate of s.47, PwD Act is too
peremptory to be ignored - PwD Act is an enactment for persons
with disabilities intended to guarantee them equal opportunities
and full participation apart from protection of rights - Importantly,
s.47 starts with "No" - Negative words in a statute convey a
clear prohibition - It is a legislative device to make a statute
imperative - An employee like the respondent, while retaining
the status of a public servant, is entitled to security of service -
A physical disability that he acquires while in service rendering
him unfit for the work assigned to him has to be dealt with by the
employer in the manner ordained by s.47 - Either he is shifted
to some other post carrying same pay and service benefits, or,
if it is not possible, the employer is under a duty to adjust him
on any other post - If that too is not possible, a supernumerary
post has to be created for him which, for all intents and purposes,
would be personal to him. [Para 74]
1.2 Further, the PwD Act came into force in the year 1995,
whereas the respondent was medically invalidated from service
in 1998 - The Notification saw the light of the day as late as in
2002 - Neither by express words nor by necessary implication
was it made to apply retrospectively from the date the PwD Act
was enforced - Also, the PwD Act being a beneficial legislation,
any notification exempting an establishment from the duty
imposed by s.47 has to be strictly construed to protect the
interests of disabled employees who acquire disability while in
service - The duty imposed by the PwD Act being mandatory
and not discretionary, the law did not leave the appellants with
an option to discharge their duty at their convenience - By not
offering alternate posting, the appellants failed in their role as a
model employer and con

## Text

_Characters 0–39,709 of 80,473. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39709 for what follows._

[2026] 8 S.C.R. 218 : 2026 INSC 689
Union of India & Ors.
v.
Bali Ram No. 850808321
(Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015)
13 July 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Single Judge rightly enforced the appellants' duty
under s.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by directing
inter alia that he be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits; whether the Division Bench was grossly wrong in not
reversing such directions.
Headnotes†
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.47 - RespondentConstable (Driver) in CRPF, was medically invalidated from
service on account of an ophthalmic condition resulting in
complete blindness in the left eye and partial impairment
of vision in the right eye - His claim seeking grant of full
financial and service benefits upon his invalidation from
service was rejected holding that he was entitled only to
a lump-sum payment of Rs.15,000/- in accordance with the
applicable rules - Respondent filed writ petition for grant of
invalid/disability pension on account of 100% disability with
consequential benefits and interest - Allowed by Single Judge
directing that he be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits - Appeal filed by appellants, dismissed by Division
Bench - Challenge to - Appellants contend that the Single
Judge erroneously placed reliance upon s.47, PwD Act as in
view of the notification dtd.10.09.2002 issued by Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment in exercise of the powers
conferred by proviso to s.47, PwD Act, all categories of
combatant personnel of the Central Para Military Forces
including the CRPF were exempted from the application of
* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
219
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
the said provision; respondent waived his statutory rights
u/s.47, PwD Act as he did not seek any relief founded
thereupon, nor did he ever pray for reinstatement in service
instead, he accepted pension and other benefits extended
to him thus, he cannot subsequently seek, nor could the
Court grant, relief of reinstatement and continuation in
service founded upon a statutory provision that was
neither invoked by him nor attracted in the given factual
scenario:
Held: 1.1 The statutory mandate of s.47, PwD Act is too
peremptory to be ignored - PwD Act is an enactment for persons
with disabilities intended to guarantee them equal opportunities
and full participation apart from protection of rights - Importantly,
s.47 starts with "No" - Negative words in a statute convey a
clear prohibition - It is a legislative device to make a statute
imperative - An employee like the respondent, while retaining
the status of a public servant, is entitled to security of service -
A physical disability that he acquires while in service rendering
him unfit for the work assigned to him has to be dealt with by the
employer in the manner ordained by s.47 - Either he is shifted
to some other post carrying same pay and service benefits, or,
if it is not possible, the employer is under a duty to adjust him
on any other post - If that too is not possible, a supernumerary
post has to be created for him which, for all intents and purposes,
would be personal to him. [Para 74]
1.2 Further, the PwD Act came into force in the year 1995,
whereas the respondent was medically invalidated from service
in 1998 - The Notification saw the light of the day as late as in
2002 - Neither by express words nor by necessary implication
was it made to apply retrospectively from the date the PwD Act
was enforced - Also, the PwD Act being a beneficial legislation,
any notification exempting an establishment from the duty
imposed by s.47 has to be strictly construed to protect the
interests of disabled employees who acquire disability while in
service - The duty imposed by the PwD Act being mandatory
and not discretionary, the law did not leave the appellants with
an option to discharge their duty at their convenience - By not
offering alternate posting, the appellants failed in their role as a
model employer and converted a welfare provision into a dead
letter. [Paras 57, 75]
220
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.3 Furthermore, waiver of a statutory right is generally disfavoured
particularly when the statute is for public welfare or the waiver
would be contrary to public policy - Moreover, elements to
constitute a waiver are absent in the present case - Objection
founded on waiver is thoroughly misconceived and is, thus,
overruled - Single Judge justified in finding the appellants to be
remiss. [Paras 47, 50, 52, 79]
1.4 Order of the Single Judge modified - Respondent awarded
an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees one crore twenty five lakh
only), inclusive of back wages, interest and costs of the present
proceedings. [Para 82]
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - CRPF, an
instrumentality of the State, ought to be fully cognizant of
the provisions of the PwD Act:
Held: CRPF, being a force constituted under the Central Reserve
Police Force Act, 1949 and functioning under the administrative
control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
failed to respond in time - Being an instrumentality of the
State, it was expected to be fully cognizant of the provisions
of the PwD Act and the statutory protection conferred upon
the respondent u/s.47 thereof - In such circumstances, it is
difficult to comprehend how the order of medical invalidation
came to be passed in the first place, particularly when at the
relevant point in time no notification exempting the CRPF from
the operation of the PwD Act had been issued - Action of the
appellants was taken in disregard of the statutory mandate then
in force - Single Judge justified in finding the appellants to be
remiss. [Paras 77, 79]
Pleadings - Absence of requisite pleadings and specific
prayers - When not fatal - Granting relief beyond what is
prayed - Writ Jurisdiction - Absence of pleadings and prayers
in the writ petition in relation to invocation of the PwD Act
by the respondent - Effect, if any:
Held: No ground was raised by the appellants either in their LPA
before the Division Bench or in the present civil appeal to the
effect that the Single Judge travelled beyond the pleadings and
the prayers in the writ petition - Since no ground has been raised,
this aspect cannot be dilated any further - Justice is a virtue
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
221
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
which transcends all barriers - Neither the rules of procedure nor
technicalities of law can stand in its way - Even the law bends
before justice - The entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised
by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness - Art.226
confers a power that is plenary, equitable and discretionary, and
is not one bound by the rigidities of law - Although in exercise
of writ jurisdiction the high courts are guided by the principles
flowing from the CPC, they are not bound by it - High courts'
writ jurisdiction under Art.226 is wider than the jurisdiction of
the civil courts - Art.226 is a reservoir of equity meant to secure
justice to the party aggrieved by omission or failure to perform a
duty by an authority within the meaning of Art.12 - Rather than
being stifled by technical pleas raised by such authority to resist
its exercise, in an exceptional case, the high court may do what
the justice of the case demands - One of such exceptions is
when the court is convinced that the petitioner is legally entitled
to more than what has been claimed, but might have claimed
less due to ignorance or bona fide mistake or inelegant drafting
of the writ petition by his lawyer - Since substantive justice
cannot be allowed to be trumped by technicalities, if the record
before the high court clearly evinces entitlement of the suitor
to a wider relief than what is claimed, the opponent is put on
notice and he/it has no answer, much less adequate answer,
and thereby, no prejudice is caused to him/it, and it is found that
the opponent is seeking to use a procedural technicality as a
shield for its own statutory breach, the court in an appropriate
case may, in its discretion, grant such relief as the suitor is
found entitled - However, the exception to the rule of doing
justice despite deficient pleadings in a writ petition ought to be
sparingly invoked and judiciously applied where the law and the
record disclose a clear entitlement of the suitor and the court
is convinced that upholding the plea raised by the opponent,
based on technicality, would defeat the right - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VII - secundum allegata et probata.
[Paras 38-44]
Service Jurisprudence - Distinction between initial
disqualification and subsequent disability - Respondent's
claim seeking grant of full financial and service benefits upon
his invalidation from service was rejected holding that he
was entitled only to a lump-sum payment of Rs. 15,000/- in
222
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
accordance with the applicable rules, as his disability was
not found to be attributable to his service:
Held: The point as to whether or not the impaired vision
from which the respondent suffered was attributable to
and/or aggravated by service in the CRPF need not detain this
Court - Nothing has been brought on record by the appellants
to suggest that the respondent had been suffering from an
ophthalmic condition since his enrolment in the CRPF - Medical
fitness of the respondent must have been assessed at the time
of his enrolment and appointment as a driver - Had he been
found short of the required standards, whether the recruitment
process would have resulted in an appointment in the first place -
Even if it is assumed that the ophthalmic condition was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by service in the CRPF, nothing
turns on it - Parliament did not limit s.47 to disabilities attributable
to service; the protection is unqualified and unconditional - It
operates irrespective of how the disability was acquired - The
relevant question is not hypothetical fitness at appointment, but
whether the appellants explored alternatives before ending the
respondent's service - More than ten years of unblemished driving
followed by an acquired ophthalmic condition, indeed, provided
a case for accommodation or alternate posting, not medical
invalidation - Service jurisprudence distinguishes between initial
disqualification and subsequent disability, and the law ought to
lean towards retention over ouster from service unless, of course,
ouster becomes inevitable. [Para 76]
Delegated Legislation - Nature - Prospective:
Held: Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective in nature
and a right or liability created for the first time cannot be given
retrospective effect - Unless and until there is a clear intention
expressed in the notification issued in pursuance of delegated
power that it would also apply retrospectively, the same cannot
be given a retrospective effect and would always operate
prospectively - An exemption notification which takes out cases
from the purview of a beneficial legislation has to be strictly
construed - The rule deducible from Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries would govern all delegated legislation including an
exemption notification because (i) absence of any distinction
carved out by such rule between "imposition of duty" and "removal
of duty" and (ii) the law may not be read in a manner providing one
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
223
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
rule for liability and another for immunity - The Notification upon
which the appellants place heavy reliance, exempting combatant
personnel of the CPMF from the application of s.47, PwD Act,
was issued only on 10.09.2002 - Neither by express words nor
by necessary implication was it made to apply retrospectively
from the date the PwD Act was enforced - Also, the PwD Act
being a beneficial legislation, any notification exempting an
establishment from the duty imposed by s.47 has to be strictly
construed to protect the interests of disabled employees who
acquire disability while in service - So long as the proviso is
not invoked by the appropriate Government for exempting an
establishment from the provision of sub-section (1) of s.47, the
employer has a duty to offer an alternate post and the employee
a right to be accommodated; however, once a notification is
issued in terms of the proviso below sub-section (2) of s.47
exempting an establishment from the provisions of the section,
not only does the duty of the employer cease from the date
the same takes effect, the employee would lose the statutory
protection of continuity in service - Issuance of the notification on
10.09.2002 aids the respondent more than advancing the cause
of the appellants - It shows that even the Government of India
in the appropriate ministry felt the need to carve the CMPFs out
of the coverage of s.47 seven years after the enactment of the
PwD Act, meaning thereby that the said provision applied with
full force to the CMPFs and covered them between 1995 and
10.09.2002 - Notification has no bearing on the legality of the
order of medical invalidation - Respondent's medical invalidation
vide order dtd.11.03.1998 was made at a point of time when
s.47, PwD Act operated and the appellants were bound by its
categorical mandate - The said order being ultra vires s.47 read
with Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution as on date the same
was made, the subsequent issuance of the Notification cannot
have retrospective effect so as to legitimise an act that is void
ab initio - The right of the respondent crystallised on the date of
ouster; and a later exemption from the statutory mandate cannot
efface the breach already committed. [Paras 55-57]
Waiver - Elements - If, absent in the present case:
Held: Yes - Waiver, in law, is an intentional relinquishment of a
known right or advantage, benefit, claim or privilege by a person
which, except for such waiver, he would have enjoyed - Waiver
224
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
must have three elements - To constitute waiver, what is required
to be proved by the party raising the plea is that (i) a person
(the other party to the lis against whom waiver is claimed) has
a right; (ii) such person has clear knowledge of that right; and
(iii) despite the knowledge (of an existing right), that person has
voluntarily and consciously given up that right - Mere silence or
inaction or delay to enforce the existing right does not constitute
waiver, since there must be a clear conduct revealing that the
right has been given up - Waiver of a statutory right is generally
disfavoured particularly when the statute is for public welfare
or the waiver would be contrary to public policy - Moreover,
whether or not a party has waived his right has to flow from his
conduct and is, essentially, a question of fact - Neither in the
LPA nor in this appeal, no point of waiver has been pleaded
by the appellants - Without a pleading, a plea of waiver need
not be adjudicated - Single Judge, recorded a finding of fact
accepting the respondent's version that he had no knowledge
of s.47, PwD Act conferring a right on him to be continued in
service notwithstanding his impairment of vision - In the LPA, no
challenge was laid to such finding - Appellants neither disputed
before the Single Judge nor before the Division Bench or this
Court that the respondent's disability was not covered by the
beneficial provisions of the enactment - In such a situation,
to attract waiver, what was required of the appellants was to
demonstrate that the respondent was aware of his right u/s.47,
yet, he elected to give it up while preferring to receive invalid/
disability pension - However, there is no material on record
to suggest that the respondent had been informed by the
appellants of a right available to him under the PwD Act and
that he relinquished his claim for enforcement of such right -
Therefore, the elements to constitute a waiver are absent in
the present case - Objection founded on waiver is thoroughly
misconceived and is, thus, overruled - Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 - s.47. [Paras 46, 47, 49, 50, 52]
Principle of 'no work, no pay' - Inapplicability - Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.47:
Held: Appellants having failed to provide an alternate post
commensurate with the respondent's disability as mandated by
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
225
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
s.47, PwD Act, cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the
principle of 'no work, no pay' - 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 - The preambular promise
of the Constitution cannot remain symbolic. [Para 81]
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Dileep Kumar Singh [2015] 2 SCR 882 : (2015)
4 SCC 421 - distinguished.
Kunal Singh v. Union of India [2003] 1 SCR 1059 : (2003) 4 SCC
524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1
SCC 579; Federation of Indian Mineral Industries v. Union of India
[2017] 12 SCR 724 : (2017) 16 SCC 186 - relied on.
Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [2013] 8 SCR 1119 : (2013)
7 SCC 316; National Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service
Commission and Others [1993] 2 SCR 556 : (1993) 2 SCC 411;
Javed Abidi v. Union of India and Ors. [1998] Supp. 3 SCR
610 : (1999) 1 SCC 467; Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan
Samadkhan Sindhi [2009] 15 SCR 662 : (2010) 1 SCC 234;
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 1 : (1993)
Supp. 4 SCC 595; Dwarka Nath v. ITO [1965] 3 SCR 536 : AIR
1966 SC 81; ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India (2004) 3 SCC 553; Puran Singh v. State of
Punjab [1996] 1 SCR 730 : (1996) 2 SCC 205; Krishan Lal v.
State of J & K [1994] 2 SCR 149 : (1994) 4 SCC 422; Union
of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [2010] 1 SCR 1099 : (2010)
2 SCC 422; Mohinder Lal v. Smt Saroj Kumari Verma [2000] 1
SCR 246 : (2000) 2 SCC 6; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union
of India [2021] 13 SCR 823 : (2023) 2 SCC 209 - referred to.
List of Acts
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995; Central Reserve Police Force
Act, 1949; Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Section 47, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; Constable
226
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(Driver) in CRPF; Medical invalidation; Medically invalidated;
Invalidation from service; Ophthalmic condition; Disseminated
Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patches with Macular Involvement;
Complete blindness in left eye; Partial impairment of vision
in right eye; Disabled employees; Invalid/disability pension;
PwD Act imposes positive obligation on employer to shift the
disabled employee; Physical disability acquired while in service;
Supernumerary post to be created; PwD Act is a beneficial
legislation; Beneficial legislation; Alternate posting not offered;
Model employer; Waiver; Waiver of a statutory right; No waiver;
CRPF, an instrumentality of State; Denial of wider relief; Want of
proper legal assistance; secundum allegata et probata; Service
Jurisprudence; Initial disqualification; Subsequent disability;
Impaired vision; Attributable to service in CRPF; Aggravated by
service in CRPF; Delegated legislation prospective; Pleadings;
Absence of requisite pleadings and specific prayers not fatal;
Granting relief beyond what is prayed in writ jurisdiction; Parties
to strictly confine to pleadings, not an inflexible rule in writ
jurisdiction; Deficient pleadings in writ petition; Post medical
invalidation benefits; Full back wages; Principle of 'no work,
no pay'; Writ jurisdiction wider than the jurisdiction of the civil
courts; Entitled to more than what has been claimed; Claimed
less due to ignorance or bona fide mistake; Inelegant drafting of
writ petition by lawyer; Substantive justice cannot be trumped by
technicalities; Entitlement to a wider relief than what is claimed.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13783
of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2014 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 25 of 2009
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., Navanajay Mahapatra, Shantanu
Sharma, Rajendra Singh Rana, Abhishek Singh, Arvind Kumar
Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Aditya Dhawan, Mrs. Kiran Dhawan, Anirudh Negi, Saurabh
Duggal, Aditya Gupta, Tushar Bukkle, Chander Shekhar Ashri.
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
227
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
The Appeal
1.
We are called upon to examine in this appeal by special leave
preferred by the Union of India, the Director General, Central Reserve
Police Force1 and two other officers2 of the CRPF, the legality
and correctness of the judgment and order dated 23rd December
20143 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh4
dismissing the appellants' intra-court appeal [Letters Patent Appeal
No. 25 of 20095], which was laid by them to challenge the judgment
and order of a Single Judge dated 11th August 2008 allowing the
respondent's writ petition6 directing that he be reinstated in service
with all consequential benefits.
Facts
2.
The facts are simple and undisputed.
3.
Respondent was enrolled in the CRPF as a Constable (Driver)
in 1985, upon being found medically fit at the material time. He
continued in service until 1996, when he developed an ophthalmic
condition. A medical examination conducted at the Government
Hospital, Jammu, revealed that the respondent was suffering from
Disseminated Choroiditis and Retinal Atrophic Patches with Macular
Involvement, resulting in complete blindness in the left eye and
partial impairment of vision in the right eye.
4.
In view of the respondent's medical condition, the Chief Medical
Officer, Station Hospital, CRPF, Jammu, recommended that his
case be placed before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board.
1
CRPF
2
appellants
3
impugned judgment
4
High Court
5
LPA
6
Civil Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2005
228
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Upon assessment, the respondent was found unfit to perform
driving as well as combatant duties and was, accordingly, referred
to the Medical Invalidation Board in 1997. The Medical Board
constituted at the Base Hospital, CRPF, Hyderabad, conducted
a medical examination of the respondent and concluded that he
was permanently incapacitated and unfit for further service in any
capacity in the CRPF.
5.
Pursuant thereto, a notice was served on the respondent calling
upon him to submit a representation, if any, against the proposed
action of medical invalidation. In response, the respondent submitted
an application seeking grant of full financial and service benefits
upon his invalidation from service. Thereafter, by an order dated 11th
March, 1998, the respondent was medically invalidated from service.
Subsequently, on 15th October, 2000, the respondent submitted a
further representation seeking redressal of his grievance; however,
the same came to be rejected by the competent authority.
6.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the High Court with
a writ petition7. The High Court disposed of the same on 5th January,
2005 with a direction to the appellants to consider and decide the
grievance expressed in the legal notice submitted on behalf of the
respondent, on or before 15th February, 2005. Pursuant thereto,
the appellants reconsidered the matter but once again rejected the
respondent's claim vide an order dated 27th June, 2005, holding that
the ailment suffered by him was neither attributable to nor aggravated
by service conditions. It was further held that the respondent was
entitled only to a lump-sum payment of Rs. 15,000/- in accordance
with the applicable rules, as his disability was not found to be
attributable to his service.
7.
Thereafter, the respondent instituted the writ petition, out of which
this appeal arises. He prayed for directions to grant invalid /
disability pension on account of 100% disability from the date of his
discharge together with consequential benefits and interest @ 18%
per annum and to constitute a fresh Medical Board for assessment
of his disability; and to declare the orders of medical invalidation
and rejection of his prayers as null and void.
7
Civil Writ Petition No. 206 of 2003
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
229
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
Proceedings before the Single Judge
8.
The Single Judge heard the contesting parties on affidavits. In
allowing the writ petition on contest, vide the judgment and order
dated 11th August, 2008, the Single Judge travelled beyond the
pleadings and the prayers of the respondent by not limiting the
scrutiny to examining the correctness of the order of medical
invalidation and / or his entitlement to invalid / disability pension;
instead, the Single Judge invoked the provisions of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 19958 to secure the appellants' statutory duty in the
light of the decisions of this Court in Kunal Singh v Union of India9
and Bhagwan Dass v Punjab State Electricity Board10. Specific
findings were returned by the Single Judge that the appellants had
acted in breach of Section 47 of the PwD Act.
9.
The operative directions given by the Single Judge read as follows:
"In view of the aforesaid observations and reasoning,
Annexure P-2 dated 11.3.1998, Annexure P-6 dated
December, 2000 and Annexure P-9 dated 27.6.2005,
respectively are quashed and set aside. The petitioner will
be deemed in service and he is entitled to all the annual
increments till the date of his retirement. The amount of
terminal benefits which has been paid in (sic, to) him
shall be adjusted against the amount of his salary from
11.3.1998 till date the (sic, he) will continue in service till the
date of his superannuation according to the service record.
He is directed to be reinstated and all due payments, after
adjustments as directed, should be made to him within
ten weeks from the date of presentation of the copy of
the judgment before respondent No.2. the writ petition is
allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-."
The Impugned Judgment
10.
Appellants, however, did not accept the judgment and order of the
Single Judge with grace; instead, they preferred the LPA wherein
8
PwD Act
9
(2003) 4 SCC 524
10
(2008) 1 SCC 579
230
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
an interim order of stay resulted in suspension of the directions of
the Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court took nearly
seven years to decide the LPA. After tracing the history as well as
the object and purpose the PwD Act was intended to serve and
upon considering the decisions of this Court in Dharamvir Singh v.
Union of India11, Kunal Singh (supra), National Federation of
Blind v. Union Public Service Commission12 and Javed Abidi v.
Union of India13, the Division Bench reasoned that mere grant of
invalid / disability pension was no ground to deny the protection
of Section 47 of the PwD Act to the respondent. While holding the
appellants to be at fault in breaching Section 47 of the PwD Act
and recording that the findings of the Single Judge did not suffer
from any infirmity, the LPA stood dismissed vide the impugned
judgement.
Proceedings before this Court
11.
Appellants did not let the matter to rest; they set out to defeat the
verdicts delivered by the High Court by applying before this Court
for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution with
an application for condonation of delay.
12.
On 23rd November, 2015, a coordinate Bench condoned the delay,
granted leave and stayed implementation of the impugned judgment.
13.
The civil appeal, having awaited its turn across Benches for a
decade, now awaits its quietus before us. So does the respondent,
who has awaited justice for more than two decades.
Contentions on behalf of the Appellants
14.
Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the appellants
urged several grounds to assail the impugned judgment and prayed
for its reversal.
15.
First, Mr. Banerjee asserted that, in the present case, the respondent
was found to have completely lost vision in one eye and was suffering
from partial loss of vision in the other. At the relevant time, he was
11
(2013) 7 SCC 316
12
(1993) 2 SCC 411
13
(1999) 1 SCC 467
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
231
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
serving as a driver in the CRPF. In view of his medical condition,
he was rendered wholly unsuitable for driving duties. Moreover, he
was also found unfit to perform any function of a combatant. These
findings stand duly affirmed by the Medical Board constituted at
the Base Hospital, CRPF, Hyderabad, which concluded that the
respondent was permanently incapacitated for further service in any
capacity in the CRPF. Thus, the question of retaining the respondent
in the service of the CRPF did not arise and regard being had to
his ophthalmic condition and the nature of disability acquired by
him, the respondent could not have been accommodated on an
alternate post. He sought to impress upon us that the appellants not
being at fault, the Division Bench seized of the LPA was expected
to correct the egregious exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge
in ordering reinstatement of the respondent on an alternate post
which it erroneously failed to do.
16.
Mr. Banerjee invited our attention to the relevant averment that
post medical invalidation, the respondent was granted whatever
financial benefits he was entitled to under the prevailing rules/
circulars including monthly pension.
17.
Secondly, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the Single Judge erroneously
placed reliance upon Section 47 of the PwD Act. Such reliance, he
contended, was wholly misplaced in view of the notification dated
10th September, 200214 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Government of India in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Section 47 of the PwD Act, whereby
all categories of combatant personnel of the Central Para Military
Forces15, including the CRPF, were exempted from the application
of the said provision.
18.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dileep
Kumar Singh16, Mr. Banerjee contended that the validity of the
Notification was upheld therein. This Court, it was highlighted,
had recognized that the exemption granted under the proviso
to Section 47 was justified having regard to the nature of duties
performed by personnel of the CRPF and the other armed forces,
14
Notification
15
CPMF
16
(2015) 4 SCC 421
232
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
where type of work discharged by the personnel is an important
consideration and continuation in service may not always be feasible
in the event of disability.
19.
Thirdly, Mr. Banerjee contended that the doctrine of waiver is clearly
attracted in the facts of the present case. It was submitted that at no
stage did the respondent seek any relief founded upon Section 47
of the PwD, Act, nor did he ever pray for reinstatement in service;
instead, he accepted pension and other benefits extended to him.
In all his representations, as well as the writ petition filed by him
in 2005, the respondent confined his claim to the grant of 100%
invalid / disability pension and other consequential benefits. Having
consciously elected to pursue only such relief, the respondent cannot
subsequently seek, nor could the Court grant, relief of reinstatement
and continuation in service founded upon a statutory provision that
was neither invoked by him nor attracted in the given factual scenario.
20.
In the alternative, Mr. Banerjee submitted that much water
having flown under the bridge since the impugned judgment was
rendered and the respondent, by now, having attained the age of
superannuation, question of his reinstatement in service does not
arise. While appealing to our conscience, he urged that the directions
made by the Single Judge, since affirmed by the Division Bench, if
allowed to stand, would impose a substantial financial burden upon
the State exchequer (in excess of Rs.82 lakh on account of salary
and allowances only). He, therefore, prayed that the impugned
judgment be suitably modified in the interests of justice and equity
in such manner we consider just and proper.
Contentions on behalf of the Respondent
21.
Mr. Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
assiduously opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Banerjee.
22.
Mr. Dhawan urged that the PwD Act, 1995, and in particular Section 47
thereof, is a social welfare legislation intended to protect employees
who acquire a disability during service. Relying on Kunal Singh
(supra), he submitted that Section 47 casts a statutory obligation
on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during
service.
23.
According to Mr. Dhawan, the respondent was fully entitled to the
protection afforded by Section 47 at the time of his invalidation
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
233
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
from service, as the order of medical invalidation was passed on
11th March, 1998 whereas the Notification exempting combatant
personnel of the CRPF and other CPMFs from the application of
Section 47 came to be issued only on 10th September, 2002. It
was contended that the Notification operates prospectively and
contains no indication of any retrospective application. Therefore,
the order of invalidation was in the teeth of Section 47 of the PwD
Act.
24.
Mr. Dhawan further submitted that the respondent had, at no stage,
waived his statutory rights under Section 47 of the PwD Act. It was
contended that the respondent, having lost his vision, was not even
aware of the protection available to him under the said provision
and, consequently, confined his claims to seeking invalid / disability
pension and other service benefits admissible under the applicable
rules. It was further urged that the appellants never informed the
respondent of his entitlement under Section 47 of the PwD Act,
despite being under an obligation to act fairly. He submitted that
this lack of awareness on the part of the respondent was rightly
noticed by the Single Judge in the judgment dated 11th August,
2008, which also granted the protection of Section 47 of the PwD
Act in ordering relief.
25.
Next, Mr. Dhawan argued that to constitute waiver, there has to be
an intentional relinquishment of a known right; and the respondent
being wholly unaware of the right guaranteed to him under Section
47, no question of relinquishment of a known right did arise. In these
circumstances, he argued that no inference of waiver can be drawn
against the respondent.
26.
That apart, it was Mr. Dhawan's contention that the plea of waiver
was never raised either in the LPA or in the grounds of appeal
presented before this Court. Submission was made that a plea taken
for the first time in course of hearing ought not to be entertained.
27.
Finally, Mr. Dhawan submitted that the appellants having breached
the statutory duty imposed by Section 47 of the PwD Act cannot
and should not be heard to urge that the Single Judge overreached
in protecting the respondent.
28.
On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Dhawan prayed for dismissal of the
civil appeal.
234
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Question
29.
These being the rival contentions, we are tasked to decide the
following question:
Whether the Single Judge rightly enforced the appellants'
duty under Section 47 of the PwD Act by making the
directions noted above in paragraph 9 and also as to
whether the Division Bench was grossly wrong in not
reversing such directions?
Analysis and Reasons
30.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned
judgment as well as the judgment of the Single Judge perused
together with the other materials on record.
31.
Section 47 of the PwD Act being at the centre of debate, it is required
to be noted. It reads:
47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.-
(1) 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.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on
the ground of his disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having
regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment,
by notification and subject to such conditions, if any,
as may be specified in such notification, exempt any
establishment from the provisions of this section.
32.
The answer to the question formulated by us seems to squarely lie
in Kunal Singh (supra), rendered more than two decades back,
[2026] 8 S.C.R.
235
Union of India & Ors. v. Bali Ram No. 850808321
where this Court held that the PwD Act imposes a positive obligation
on the employer to shift the disabled employee and not wait for him
to ask for such shifting.
33.
However, without truncating the adjudicatory process by merely
relying on Kunal Singh (supra), we propose to deal with each
of Mr. Banerjee's objections while rendering our decision before
we finally draw guidance from Kunal Singh (supra) and the other
precedents in the field.
34.
In course of hearing, we had noticed complete absence of pleadings
and prayers in the writ petition in relation to invocation of the PwD
Act by the respondent. At the same time, we do not find any ground
raised by the appellants either in their LPA before the Division Bench
or in the civil appeal before us to the effect that the Single Judge
travelled beyond the pleadings and the prayers in the writ petition.
Since no ground has been raised, it is open to us not to dilate on
this aspect any further. However, we feel it necessary to lay down
the yardstick to be applied where the pleadings are skeletal and
prayers deficient, yet, the material on record establishes that denial
of wider relief would perpetuate injustice merely for want of proper
legal assistance.
A.
Absence of requisite pleadings and specific prayers -
when not fatal?
35.
The Supreme Court in multiple rulings has cautioned that in exercising
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts
must confine themselves to the pleadings and the prayer clauses;
and granting relief beyond what is prayed for is not permissible in
law. One may profitably refer to the decision in Bharat Amratlal
Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi17 in this regard.
36.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 190818, which is applicable to suits,
envisions under Order VII that the court cannot traverse beyond
the pleadings and make out a case which was never pleaded,
such principle having originated from the fundamental legal maxim
secundum allegata et probata, i.e., the court will arrive at its decision
on the basis of the claims and proof led by the parties.