The Supreme Court on Monday, 13 July upheld a Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) had unlawfully discharged constable Bali Ram after he lost his vision during service, holding that the authorities were under a statutory obligation to accommodate him in an alternate post rather than remove him from employment. The apex court awarded him a consolidated compensation of ₹1.25 crore, inclusive of back wages, interest, and litigation costs.

Background of the Case

Constable Bali Ram, who served as a driver with the CRPF, developed an ophthalmic condition while on duty in 1996. A Medical Board subsequently declared him permanently unfit for driving and combatant duties, following which he was medically invalidated from service on 11 March 1998. He approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which ruled in his favour in 2008, finding the invalidation illegal — yet he remained out of employment for nearly three decades, enduring prolonged financial hardship.

What the Supreme Court Held

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih dismissed the appeal filed by the Union government and the CRPF, affirming that the medical invalidation violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The court was unequivocal that the duty cast by the law was mandatory, not discretionary.

'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. 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 stated.

Rejection of CRPF's Exemption Claim

The Centre had argued that a 2002 notification exempted the CRPF from the provisions of Section 47 of the PwD Act. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the exemption operated only prospectively and could not retroactively validate an action that had already been rendered illegal at the time it was taken. The bench expressed concern over the paramilitary force's conduct, noting it was difficult to comprehend how an instrumentality of the state could ignore a clear statutory mandate.

'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 court observed.

Relief Granted and Next Steps

Since Bali Ram had already reached the age of superannuation, the court held that reinstatement was no longer feasible. It directed the Union government and the CRPF to pay him the consolidated sum of ₹1.25 crore within eight weeks. Additionally, the court directed the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority, Kangra, to assist the visually impaired constable in safely investing a portion of the compensation and in overseeing his future medical needs.

The court also noted that the prolonged non-employment was entirely the authorities' own creation: '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 ruling sets a significant precedent on the mandatory nature of disability accommodation obligations for central paramilitary forces.