He Lost an Eye in Service and Was Sent Home With Rs 15,000

What happened

The respondent was a Constable (Driver) in the Central Reserve Police Force. He developed an ophthalmic condition that left him completely blind in the left eye with partial impairment of vision in the right. In 1998 he was medically invalidated out of service.

He asked for full financial and service benefits on invalidation. That was refused. Under the applicable rules he was held entitled to a lump-sum payment of Rs 15,000.

He filed a writ petition seeking invalid or disability pension for 100% disability with consequential benefits and interest. A Single Judge allowed it and directed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The Union’s appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench. The Union came to the Supreme Court.

The argument for the Union

The Union’s case had two limbs, and both were serious ones.

• Section 47 could not be relied on at all, because a notification dated 10 September 2002 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment under the proviso to Section 47 exempted all categories of combatant personnel of the Central Para Military Forces, including the CRPF, from the application of that provision.
• He had waived his statutory rights. He never sought relief founded on Section 47, never prayed for reinstatement, and accepted pension and other benefits — so he could not later seek, and the Court could not grant, relief resting on a provision he had never invoked.

Why the word 'No' decided it

The Bench began with the text, and with a point of construction that travels well beyond this statute.

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.

From that, the Court held the statutory mandate is too peremptory to be ignored. An employee in the respondent’s position, while retaining the status of a public servant, is entitled to security of service. A physical disability acquired while in service, rendering him unfit for the work assigned, has to be dealt with in the manner the section ordains.

That manner is a sequence, not a menu. He is shifted to some other post carrying the same pay and service benefits. If that is not possible, the employer must 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, is personal to him.

Why the 2002 notification did not save the Union

The dates disposed of the exemption argument. The PwD Act came into force in 1995. The respondent was medically invalidated in 1998. The notification was issued in 2002.

Neither by express words nor by necessary implication was that notification made to apply retrospectively from the date the Act was enforced. It could not reach back to govern an invalidation four years earlier.

The Court added a construction point that outlives these facts. The PwD Act is beneficial legislation, so any notification exempting an establishment from the duty imposed by Section 47 has to be strictly construed, to protect the interests of disabled employees who acquire disability while in service.

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 duty was never discretionary

The Court’s answer to the waiver argument follows from the nature of the obligation. The duty imposed by the Act is mandatory and not discretionary, so the law did not leave the appellants with an option to discharge it at their convenience.

Where the obligation sits on the employer and is imperative in its terms, an employee’s failure to plead it, or his acceptance of what was offered instead, does not release the employer from it.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

Is Section 47 of the PwD Act mandatory or discretionary?

Mandatory. The Supreme Court held the statutory mandate is too peremptory to be ignored, reasoning from the fact that the section begins with the word No: negative words in a statute convey a clear prohibition and are a legislative device to make a provision imperative.

What must an employer do when an employee becomes disabled in service?

Follow a sequence. Shift the employee to another post carrying the same pay and service benefits; if that is not possible, adjust him on any other post; and if that too is not possible, create a supernumerary post which for all intents and purposes is personal to him.

Does the 2002 notification exempt CRPF personnel from Section 47?

Not for a disability that arose before it. The notification was issued in September 2002 and was not made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication, so it could not govern an invalidation from 1998. The Court also held such exemptions must be strictly construed because the Act is beneficial legislation.

Does accepting pension waive the right under Section 47?

No. The duty imposed by the Act is mandatory rather than discretionary, so the employer had no option to discharge it at its convenience. The employee's failure to invoke the section, or his acceptance of pension and other benefits, did not release the employer from the obligation.

What is a supernumerary post?

A post created specifically for the employee where no existing post can accommodate him. The Court described it as one which, for all intents and purposes, would be personal to him — the final step in the sequence Section 47 requires.

If you act for an employee disabled in service

1. Check the date the disability arose against the date of any exemption notification. An exemption issued later does not reach backwards unless it says so expressly or by necessary implication.
2. Plead the statutory duty even where compensation has already been accepted. The duty sits on the employer and is not discharged by the employee taking what was offered.
3. Take the employer through the sequence on the record: same-pay post, then any other post, then a supernumerary post. Each step has to be shown to be impossible before the next is reached.
4. Where the employer is a public authority, frame the failure as a departure from the standard of a model employer, which is the language the Court used.
5. Read any exemption notification strictly, and say so — the Act is beneficial legislation and that is how the Court construes it.

Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 689, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 218, Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015, decided 13 July 2026 by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in