1 WP6535.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 6535 OF 2024

PETITIONER :Rameshwar S/o Mahadeorao Surve,

Aged about 50 years, Occu. Service,

R/o C/o Himmatrao Thakare,

Suyog Nagar, Behind Hotel Ekvira,

Darwha Road, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS :1.State of Maharashtra,

through its Secretary,

Department of Rural Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

2.Divisional Commissioner,

Amravati Division, Amravati.

3.Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. P. B. Patil with Mr. Vinay Rathi, Advocates for the petitioner

Mr. C. A. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Vikas Kulsange, Advocate for respondent no.3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.

Judgment Reserved on : January 08, 2026

Judgment Pronounced on : March 26, 2026

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:4826

2 WP6535.24.odt

2. The controversy in this petition lies in a narrow

compass i.e. whether in the process of shifting a disabled person to

other suitable post/cadre in view of the mandate of Section 47 of

the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation), Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act of 1995”), seniority of the employees in the said cadre can

be disturbed.

3. The relevant facts that require mention here are as

follows :

In the year 2002, the petitioner was appointed on the

post of ‘Lab Technician’ with respondent no.3 – Zilla Parishad,

Yavatmal by following due procedure. In the year 2010, the

petitioner incurred disability of low vision. Therefore, the

petitioner requested respondent no.3 to shift his services to some

other post with the same pay-scale and other benefits. Since,

respondent no.3 did not take any decision, the petitioner filed Writ

Petition No. 6254/2015 before this Court. The Division Bench of

this Court allowed the petition on 08.03.2016 with a direction to

respondent no.3 to submit the appropriate proposal to respondent

no.2 for absorbing/appointing the petitioner as Extension Officer

(Panchayat) in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1995

3 WP6535.24.odt

and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services

(Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of

1967”). Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was

absorbed on the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) vide

appointment order dated 16.06.2016. The petitioner joined the

services on the post of Extension Officer on 01.07.2016 and is

continuously working on the said post with respondent no.3, since

the last six and half years.

4. On 01.01.2023, respondent no.2 published a

provisional Seniority List of the Zilla Parishad employees who

were eligible for promotion in Maharashtra Vikas Seva Group-B

category in which, the name of the petitioner was not included.

The petitioner raised an objection before respondent no.2 as to his

seniority as well as non-inclusion of his name in the list of

candidates eligible for promotion. The said objection was

overruled and final Seniority List was published for promotion in

Maharashtra Vikas Sewa Group-B category on 20.08.2024,

wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. Feeling

aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. P. B. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s initial appointment was

4 WP6535.24.odt

on 18.02.2002 as ‘Lab Technician’. Due to the disability incurred

by the petitioner during service, he was absorbed on the post of

‘Extension Officer (Panchayat)’ with respondent no.3. While being

absorbed to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat), the

petitioner was put at the bottom of the Seniority List. According

to the learned counsel, since the petitioner has been transferred

from the post of Lab Technician to the post of Extension Officer

(Panchayat), for the purpose of seniority, his initial date of

appointment should have been considered by respondent no.2

while preparing the Seniority List of Extension Officers who were

eligible for promotion. However, respondent no.2 ignoring the

date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lab

Technician, erroneously considered the date of his appointment on

the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) for determination of

seniority, which is against the mandate of Section 47 of the Act of

1995. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel seeks to rely

on the decision in the case of Kunal Singh vs. Union of India and

another, reported at (2003) 4 SCC 524 wherein, the Supreme

Court in paragraph 9 has held as under :

“9.……….. It must be borne in mind that Section

2 of the Act has given distinct and different

definitions of “disability” and “person with

5 WP6535.24.odt

disability”. It is well settled that in the same

enactment if two distinct definitions are given

defining a word/expression, they must be

understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It

must be remembered that a person does not acquire

or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who

acquires disability during his service, is sought to be

protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically.

Such employee, acquiring disability, if not

protected, would not only suffer himself, but

possibly all those who depend on him would also

suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47

clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very

opening part of the section reads “no establishment

shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee

who acquires a disability during his service”. The

section further provides that if an employee after

acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he

was holding, could be shifted to some other post

with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is

not possible to adjust the employee against any post

he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a

suitable post is available or he attains the age of

superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this

no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on

the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-

section (2) of Section 47. ……...”

6. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court in the case of Sahib Singh Vs. Uttar

Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and others, reported at 2013

SCC Online P&H 225 wherein, at paragraph 8, the Court has

observed as under :

6 WP6535.24.odt

“8. ……. In the aforesaid memo, a condition was put in

that the petitioner will lose his seniority in the cadre of

ALMs and will be placed at the tail-end of seniority of

Meter Readers. This condition certainly goes against

the spirit of Section 47 of the Act, which provides that

no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank

an employee who acquires disability during service.

However, in case an employee if he acquires disability

is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be

shifted to some post with same pay scale and service

benefits. In the case in hand, the action of the

respondents in taking away the benefits of the past

service of the petitioner till such time he was adjusted

on the post of Meter Reader is totally contrary to the

spirit of Section 47 of the Act. It is nothing else but a

punishment without any fault of the petitioner. He may

have been assigned the duty of a Meter Reader as he

was capable of performing the same or he may have

been assigned any other duty as well carrying some pay

scales or service benefits, but by no means he could be

deprived of his past service or the benefits accruing to

him subsequent to his adjustment on the new post

taking into consideration his past service. In the

present case, the petitioner has been denied that

benefit. As the persons junior to the petitioner in the

cadre of ALMs, have been granted certain benefits to

which they became entitled to considering their length

of service as ALM, however, the petitioner was denied

those benefits as he was considered as freshly

appointed Meter Reader on 1.8.2000. Such an action

has to be declared illegal and arbitrary. Ordered

accordingly. The condition that the petitioner will be

placed at the tail-end of the seniority of Meter Readers

is quashed. The respondents are directed to calculate

all the benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled

to considering him in the seniority of ALMs where he

was placed before the accident took place and grant

7 WP6535.24.odt

him the same. However, it is directed that payment of

arrears, if any, shall be restricted to 38 months from

the date of filing of the writ petition.”

7. Respondent no. 3 appeared and filed its reply inter alia,

contending that it is the petitioner who himself had applied for

transfer from the post of Lab Technician to the post of Extension

Officer (Panchayat). He has been appointed afresh on the said

post. Thus, his appointment is a fresh appointment. The order

appointing him on the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat)

clearly stipulates the condition that he will be placed at the

tail-end of the seniority list of Extension Officers. According to Mr.

Kulsange, learned counsel for respondent no.3, once the said

condition is accepted and the petitioner joins the services on the

post of Extension Officer, he cannot say that he should be placed

in the Seniority List by considering the date of his initial

appointment as Lab Technician, that too after six years. It is also

submitted that the petitioner had not completed seven years of

service on the post of Extension Officer on 01.01.2023, which is

the minimum period of service required to qualify for promotion.

8. The sum and substance of the submissions of the

learned counsel for respondent no.3 Mr. Kulsunge is that Section

8 WP6535.24.odt

47 of the Act of 1995 will not help the petitioner because he

himself sought transfer on the post of Extension Officer.

Respondent no.3 never wanted to shunt him from the post of Lab

Technician. Section 47(2) of the Act of 1995 does not apply in

this case and therefore, he sought rejection of the petition.

9. The submission of both the counsels takes me to

Section 47 of the Act of 1995, which reads thus :

“47. Non-discrimination in Government employment-

(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or

reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability

during his service.

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring

disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,

could be shifted to some other post with the same pay

scale and service benefits;

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust

the employee against any post, he may be kept on a

supernumerary post until suitable post is available or

he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is

earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person

merely on the ground of his disability :

Provided that the appropriate Government may,

having regard to the type of work carried on in any

establishment, by notification and subject to such

conditions, if any, as may be specified in such

notification, exempt any establishment from the

provisions of this section."

9 WP6535.24.odt

10. There is no manner of doubt that an employee who

acquires disability during his service is required to be protected

under Section 47 of the Act of 1995. It is mandatory on the part of

the employer or establishment not to dispense with or reduce in

rank, an employee who acquires disability during service. Due to

such disability, if he is not suitable for the post which he was

holding before acquiring the disability, he should be shifted to

some other post with the same pay-scale and service benefits. If it

is not possible, then the establishment/ employer has to keep him

on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until

he attains the age of superannuation.

11. Notably, when the petitioner acquired disability,

respondent no.3 did not intend to/attempt to dispense with or to

reduce the petitioner in rank while he was working as Lab

Technician. It is the petitioner who on his own, sought transfer

from the post of Lab Technician to the post of Extension Officer

(Panchayat) that too, with the intervention of this Court. Thus,

there was no breach of Section 47(1) of the Act of 1995 on the

part of respondent no.3 at all. Be that as it may, the employer has

already taken care of Section 47(1) of the Act of 1995. The

petitioner, who was working as Lab Technician and acquired

10 WP6535.24.odt

disability of low vision, has been absorbed on the post of Extension

Officer (Panchayat) by giving new appointment with effect from

16.06.2016.

12. Here, the entire focus of the petitioner is on clause (2)

of Section 47, which mandates that no promotion shall be denied

to a person merely on the ground of his disability. According to

the petitioner, after he was absorbed/appointed on the post of

Extension Officer (Panchayat), he was kept at the bottom of the

seniority list of the absorbed post, which is now coming in the way

of his promotion.

13. Section 47 of the Act of 1995 runs in two parts. The

first part gives protection to an employee who acquires disability

during service from being shunted or being reduced in rank or pay

scale. Whereas, the second part i.e. sub-section (2) deals with

protection to a disabled employee from being discriminated

against during promotion on account of his disability.

14. Axiomatically, reduction in rank is a punitive demotion

to a lower grade, class or hierarchical post, often reducing salary

and status. Reduction in rank causes a direct, immediate decrease

in rank, pay and responsibilities. Thus, the expressions ‘reduction

11 WP6535.24.odt

in rank’ and protection of ‘same pay scale and service benefits’ as

used in Section 47 of the Act of 1995 have to be understood in the

contextual background of shifting a disabled employee to some

other post in the same organization. Therefore, as per Section

47(1) of the Act of 1995, a disabled employee may be protected

from dispensing with or reduction in rank, so that he receives

regular emoluments even without discharging duty until he is

superannuated.

15. In contrast, reduction in seniority is reordering of an

employee’s position within the same grade or rank, which may

affect chances of future promotion but does not lower their

current post or salary. Reduction in seniority primarily affects

promotion, not current salary or grade.

16. Promotion is not a vested right. The aspect of

promotion is dealt with on a different pedestal. The legislative

intent of the Act of 1995 is clear that it is not every denial of

promotion that attracts the rigors of sub-section (2) of Section 47.

The legislative mandate is that promotion cannot be denied only

on the ground of disability. The legislative intent will have to be

respected. Jurisprudence and pragmatic logic clearly explains why

removal or reduction is treated differently than promotion.

12 WP6535.24.odt

17. While the legislative intention is to continue the

protection of employment available to an employee even after

acquiring disability, the same cannot be at the detriment of

another employee who is working on a regular basis in a cadre

where the disabled employee is being shifted, to continue the

protection of pay scale and service benefits to him. The expression

‘same pay scale and service benefits’ would mean that after

acquiring disability, such employee would be entitled to be posted

in a cadre/department on a post where the pay scale and service

benefits are commensurate with the post which the disabled

employee was holding before acquiring the disability and nothing

else.

18. In the process of shifting a disabled employee to

another cadre, the seniority of the regular employees who are

already there in that cadre will also have to be protected, as

otherwise, that will cause discrimination with the employees in

that cadre. Promotion cannot be given to a disabled person by

putting the seniority of the existing senior employees in the said

cadre in jeopardy. This cannot be the purport and intent of the

language used in Section 47 of the Act of 1995.

13 WP6535.24.odt

19. Here, at the first place respondent no.3 did not intend

to dispense with or reduce the petitioner in rank after he acquired

the disability. The petitioner on his own, sought transfer from the

post of Lab Technician to Extension Officer (Panchayat). The

petitioner was absorbed on the post of Extension Officer

(Panchayat) on his own request, which is a post that is supposed

to be filled directly from the public. The record reveals that the

petitioner was appointed on the post of Extension Officer as a

fresh candidate with a stipulation in the appointment order itself

that he will be put at the tail-end in the seniority list of that Cadre.

Having accepted the said condition and having worked for more

than six years, the petitioner has raised this grievance when the

process for promotion from the cadre of Extension Officer

(Panchayat) was initiated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take

benefit of both the situations by complaining about non-

compliance of Section 47 that too, after a period of more than six

years.

20. Notably, promotion is not being denied to the

petitioner merely on the ground of his disability. It seems that

there are other Senior Officers who were already working in the

14 WP6535.24.odt

cadre prior to transfer of the petitioner from the post of Lab

Technician to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat). The

service rules mandate that for promotion to the post of

Maharashtra Vikas Sewa Group-B category from the cadre of

Extension Officer, experience of 7 years on the said post is

required. Axiomatically, the petitioner did not possess such

eligibility on the date when the process of promotion was started

i.e. as of 01.01.2023. Thus, here is not the case that though the

petitioner was eligible for promotion in Maharashtra Vikas Sewa

Group-B, he was denied the same only on the ground of his

disability. Rather, there are other employees who are senior to the

petitioner in the cadre. The petitioner is not being discriminated

against by denying promotion just because he is disabled, so as to

trigger the protective mechanism of Section 47 of the Act of 1995.

The petitioner did not possess the minimum experience criteria

required in order to be eligible for promotion on the relevant date.

Thus, there is no breach of Section 47(2) of the Act of 1995.

21. A reference can be made to the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Shyamkumar

Vs. The Union of India and others reported at 2023 SCC OnLine

Bom 1076, wherein this Court has observed as under :

15 WP6535.24.odt

26. In our considered view, if the case of the

petitioner is considered on the touchstone of the

recruitment rules which are brought to our notice,

the submission that the denial of promotion falls

foul of the legislative mandate of Section 47 of the

Act of 1995 or Section 20 of the Act of 2016, which

is worded identically much be rejected.

22. The same is also fortified by the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Devendra Kumar

Pant and others reported at (2009) 14 SCC 546 wherein, in

paragraph 32, the Supreme Court has observed as under :

“32. Where the employer stipulates minimum

standards for promotion keeping in view the safety,

security and efficiency, and if the employee is

unable to meet the higher minimum standards on

account of any disability or failure to posses the

minimum standards, then Section 47(2) will not be

attracted, nor can it be pressed into service for

seeking promotion. In other words, where the

disability is likely to affect the maintenance of safety

and security norms, or efficiency, then the

stipulation of standards for maintaining such safety,

security and efficiency will not be considered as

denying a person with disability, promotion, merely

on the ground of his disability.”

23. So far as the decision of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Sahib Singh (supra) is

concerned, the petitioner in that case was shifted from the post of

ALM to the post of Meter Reader. The Court relying on the

16 WP6535.24.odt

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Singh (supra)

directed that he be placed in the seniority of ALMs, where he was

placed before the accident took place, by giving him all the

benefits to which he was entitled. In Kunal Singh’s case (supra)

this was not the issue at all. Rather, what was under

consideration was discharge of the employee after acquiring

disability, without applying the provisions of Section 47 of the Act

of 1995. The reliance thus placed on Kunal Singh’s case in the

case of Sahib Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for

the petitioner is of no assistance, as it misconstrues the position

enunciated in Kunal Singh (supra)

24. That apart, the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Shyamkumar (supra), is binding on this Court.

Therefore, the decision in the case of Sahib Singh (supra) of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court will not help the petitioner.

Additionally, there was no act on the part of the respondent/

establishment to even attempt to dispense with or reduce the

petitioner in rank. On this count as well, the decision of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court is distinguishable.

25. To sum up, in the process of shifting a disabled

employee in view of the mandate of Section 47 of the Act of 1995,

17 WP6535.24.odt

seniority of the employees who are already in that cadre where the

disabled employee is being shifted cannot be disturbed.

Therefore, the contention that the previous service of the

petitioner on the post of Lab Technician be counted for the

purpose of determining his seniority in the cadre of Extension

Officer (Panchayat) cannot be accepted, more particularly when

the other employees who are being affected by this order are not a

party to this petition. Therefore, the petition fails on all counts.

26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule

discharged.

(M.W.Chandwani,J.)

Diwale