SMT. JYOTI JAYESH TAYADE v. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS.
High Court of Bombay, Bombay (Civil)
2025:BHC-AS:45681-DB
Elucidates the interpretation and application of Section 47, concerning non-discrimination in employment based on disability.
List of Laws: The Person with Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Legal Discussion:
- The Person with Disability (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: The judgment extensively discusses Section 47 of the Act, which pertains to non-discrimination in government employment for individuals who acquire a disability during their service. The court emphasizes the mandatory nature of Section 47, citing the Supreme Court's view that it casts a statutory obligation on the employer to protect such employees. The court interprets Section 47(1) to mean that an employer cannot dispense with or reduce the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service. If the employee is unsuitable for their original post, they should be shifted to another suitable post with the same pay and benefits. If no such post is available, the employee should be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable vacancy arises or they reach superannuation. The court also notes that Section 47(2) prohibits denying promotion based solely on disability. The significance of this interpretation lies in reinforcing the job security of employees who acquire disabilities during their service. This aligns with the Act's objective of providing equal opportunities, protecting rights, and ensuring full participation for disabled persons. The practical implication is that employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees who acquire disabilities, and termination should be a last resort. The key takeaway is that Section 47 provides robust protection against discrimination and termination for employees who become disabled during their service. The court also notes that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is not an exempted organization under Section 47, making the Act applicable to its employees. The judgment also references Section 62 of the Act, under which the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The court refers to Section 2 of the Act, noting the distinct definitions of "disability" and "person with disability".