Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Disabled CRPF Constable, Awards Rs 1.25 Crore Compensation

New Delhi, July 2026 : In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision declaring the medical invalidation of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable illegal after he lost vision while in service. The apex court ruled that the force was legally bound to provide him with an alternative posting instead of removing him from service.

A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih dismissed an appeal filed by the Union government and the CRPF challenging the High Court’s verdict. However, the court modified the relief granted earlier by directing the authorities to pay the former constable, Bali Ram, a consolidated compensation of Rs 1.25 crore, covering back wages, interest and litigation costs.

The court held that Bali Ram, who served as a CRPF constable and driver, developed a visual disability during his service in 1996 and was medically invalidated two years later. The judges ruled that his removal from service violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which prohibits employers from dispensing with or reducing the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service.

Delivering the judgment, the Bench emphasised that the provisions of the Disabilities Act impose a mandatory obligation on employers to accommodate employees who become disabled while in service.

“The duty imposed by the PwD Act is mandatory and not discretionary. The authorities were required to find a suitable position for the respondent rather than waiting for him to seek one,” the court observed.

According to the judgment, the CRPF Medical Board had declared Bali Ram permanently unfit for driving and combat duties because of an ophthalmic condition. He was subsequently medically invalidated from service on March 11, 1998, without any effort being made to identify an alternative role suitable for his condition.

The Union government had argued that the CRPF was exempt from the provisions of Section 47 following a notification issued in 2002. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the exemption was prospective in nature and could not be used to justify an action taken four years earlier.

The Bench also expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of the CRPF, observing that it had ignored a clear statutory mandate despite being an instrumentality of the State.

“It is intriguing that the CRPF failed to respond in accordance with the law. As a State instrumentality, it was expected to be fully aware of the protections guaranteed under the Disabilities Act,” the judgment noted.

The court further remarked that by failing to provide an alternative posting, the CRPF had fallen short of its responsibilities as a model employer and had effectively rendered a welfare provision meaningless.

Noting that Bali Ram had remained out of employment for nearly three decades despite securing a favourable High Court verdict in 2008, the Supreme Court observed that reinstatement was no longer a practical remedy as he had already crossed the age of superannuation.

The judges held that the prolonged unemployment and financial hardship suffered by the former constable were entirely the result of the authorities’ inaction. Consequently, they ruled that he was entitled to full compensation for the injustice he had endured.

The Supreme Court directed the Union government and the CRPF to pay the compensation of Rs 1.25 crore within eight weeks. It also instructed the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, or alternatively the District Legal Services Authority in Kangra, to assist the visually impaired former constable in investing part of the compensation securely and ensuring that adequate arrangements are made to meet his future medical and financial needs.

The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent on the rights of government employees who acquire disabilities during service, reaffirming the obligation of public authorities to provide reasonable accommodation instead of terminating employment.

(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)