Dnyaneshwar Lavhaji Kalukhe v. MSEDCL & Ors. – Bombay HC, Writ Petition on Termination of Employee with Disability under RPwD Act, 2016.

Headnote:

Petitioner, a permanent employee of MSEDCL, suffered a cerebrovascular accident in April 2018, resulting in speech and language disability. Despite obtaining medical fitness certificates, the petitioner was repeatedly subjected to multiple medical examinations by the Civil Surgeon, Standing Medical Board, and MSEDCL Medical Advisor. Ultimately, the Standing Medical Board declared him unfit for duty, leading to termination of service in April 2023. Petitioner challenged termination under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is beneficial legislation, which protects employees acquiring disability during service from termination or reduction in rank, mandates reasonable accommodation, and provides for placement in supernumerary posts if reassignment is not immediately possible. Multiple medical examinations imposed on the petitioner were unnecessary and contrary to the Act’s rights-based approach. MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 cannot override the Central legislation.

Background:

Petitioner was appointed temporary Junior Clerk in 2003, made permanent in 2004. In April 2018, petitioner suffered a severe brain disease requiring surgery. After recovery, he applied to rejoin service, providing a fitness certificate. Respondents repeatedly required medical examinations, culminating in a Standing Medical Board report declaring him unfit in June 2022. Petitioner subsequently obtained a Disability Certificate confirming 93% permanent speech and language disability under the Disabilities Act, 2016. Termination by MSEDCL on medical grounds was challenged before the Court.

Court Opinion/Analyses:

1. Disabilities Act, 2016 is rights-based, beneficial legislation, granting protection and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities.
2. Section 20(4) prohibits termination or reduction in rank of employees acquiring disability and mandates reassignment or placement in supernumerary posts.
3. Multiple medical examinations were unreasonable and unnecessary.
4. MSEDCL regulations cannot override Central legislation provisions.
5. Supreme Court precedent (Kunal Singh vs. Union of India) supports mandatory protection of employees acquiring disabilities.

Decision / Relief Granted:

1. Termination order quashed and set aside.
2. Petitioner reinstated in service; if no post available, placed on supernumerary post until suitable post or superannuation.
3. Arrears of salary to be paid within four weeks, carrying 9% interest if delayed.
4. Petition and interim application disposed of; no specific order as to costs.

Held: Termination order quashed. Petitioner reinstated with arrears; if no suitable post is available, petitioner to be placed on supernumerary post until a suitable post arises or until superannuation. Arrears to carry interest if not paid within four weeks.

Legal Provisions Concerned:

1. Disabilities Act, 2016 prevails over organizational regulations regarding disability rights.
2. Termination of employees acquiring disability is impermissible if reassignment or reasonable accommodation is possible.
3. Rights-based approach mandates protection, equality, and non-discrimination for employees with disabilities.

Case No|WP-1671-2024|

Court|High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction|

Coram|M.S. Karnik & N.R. Borkar, JJ.|

Date of Decision|10th October, 2025