New Delhi, July 13 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Himachal Pradesh High Court verdict holding that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) 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

pds/vd