Holding

An employee who acquires a disability during service is entitled to the mandatory protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, and the termination order is set aside.

Summary

Kunal Singh, a constable in the Special Service Bureau, suffered a severe leg injury that led to amputation and was declared permanently incapacitated. The employer terminated his service, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition. Singh appealed, contending that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, he was entitled to protection despite receiving an invalidity pension under Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The Supreme Court held that the Act, a special legislation, provides mandatory protection to employees who acquire disability during service, and the doctrine of generalia specialia non derogant prevents other rules from overriding it. Consequently, the order of termination was set aside and the employer was directed to grant relief as per Section 47. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an employee who acquires a disability during service is covered by Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Whether Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, granting an invalidity pension, overrides the mandatory protection under Section 47.
How to interpret the distinct definitions of "disability" and "person with disability" in Section 2 of the Act.
Whether the doctrine of generalia specialia non derogant applies to reconcile the Act with other statutory rules.

Legislation cited

Subjects

disability lawemployment protectionSection 47Persons with Disabilities Actinvalidity pensionsupernumerary postequal opportunityspecial legislationgeneralia specialia non derogant

Judgment

KUNAL SINGH A
~ ...,- v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

[SH!VARAJ V. PATIL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B

Service law:

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection ofRights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995; Sections 2 and 47: Injury caused to employee c
during employment-Invalidated from service on ground of permanent
~ incapacity-Challenge t()-Writ Petition dismissed by High Court-On appeal,
Held: In construing beneficial enactment dealing with disabled persons, the
view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be
preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyse the purpose-
D
Merely because the disabled employee got invalidity pension is no ground to
deny the protection mandatorily made available under the Act -Employer to
grant relief in terms of Section 47- Direction issued-CCS Pension Rules,
1972; Rule 38-Interpretation of Statutes.

legal Maxims: E
Maxim 'generalia Specia/ious non derogant '-Applicability of

Appellant-employee, a Constable in the Special Service Bureau,
suffered an injury in his left leg which resulted in its amputation. He was
invalidated from service by the respondent-employer on the basis of the F
" .... report by the Medical Board declaring him permanently incapacitated.
High Court dismissed t~e Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved employee,
Hence the present appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that in view of the object and
purpose of the Act and also the provisions of law contained in Section 47 G
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
.} and: Full Participation) Act, relief ought to have been granted under the
facts and circumstances of the case. On behalf of the respondent, it was
submitted that since the appellant was granted invalidity pension on

1059 H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] I S.C.R.

A ground of permanent incapacity, he could not be considered as person with
disability.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HE.LU: 1.1. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
B Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, provides some sort of
succour to the disabled persons. Section 47 of the Act deals with an
employee of an establishment who acquires disability during his services.
It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and
different definitions of "disability" and "person with disability". It is well
C settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions a.re given
defining a word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms
oflthe definition. The person does not acquire or stiffer 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
D possibly all tltose who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame
and contents of Sectio.n 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. In the
instant case, the disability suffered by the appellant is covered by Section
2(i)(v) read with Section 2(o) of the Act [1065-A-D; 1064-CI

1.2. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too
E dealing with disabled persons which was intended to give them equal
opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that
advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred
to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act.
Benefit of Section 47 cannot be denied to the appellant as he has acquired
F 'disability'/permanent invalidity within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the
Act and not a person with.disability. It being a special enactment, doctrine
of generalia specialious non derogant would apply. Hence Rule 38 of the.
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules cannot override Section 47 of the ..
Act. (1065-F, G, H; 1066-A, BJ

G 1.3. Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules the
appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection
mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act.
Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service· ~
and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted
to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits; if it was not
H possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a
KlJNAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. J.] I 061

supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the A
age of superannuation, \\ hichever is earlier. No such eiforts were made
1

- t by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that appellant was
permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the
effect of other prO\·isions of Section 47 of the Act. Respondents are directed
to grant relief in terms of Section 47 of the Act. 11066-D-Fl
B
' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1789 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.1999 in CWP 9/99 of the
High Court of H.P. at Shimla.

Ranjit Kumar. Anil Nag, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Sushma Suri and B.K.
c
Prasad (NP) for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The appellant was recruited as a Constable D
in the Special Service Bureau (for short 'the SSB'). When he was on duty,
he suffered an injury in his left leg. The medical aid given to him did not
help. Ultimately, his left leg was amputated on account of gangrene which
had developed from the injury. He was invalidated from service by the
respondents on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, Kullu under
which he was declared pennanently incapacitated for further service as per E
order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB
Shamshi (Kutlu). He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the
validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary
and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he could
discharge keeping In view the extent of his disability and having due regard F
.... to 17 years of his unblemished service. The writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court holding that he had been permanently invalidated on the basis
of the medical opinion and as such there was no scope for him to continue
any further in service of any kind in the SSB. Hence, this appeal is filed
assailing the impugned order. It appears, before the High Court, no argument
was advanced specifically in support of the writ petition on the basis of G
Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'). However, a
specific ground is raised in this appeal based on Section 47 of the Act. Since
it is a pure question of Jaw, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on
the contentions including the one based on Section 47 of the Act. H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 1 S.C.R.

A The learned counsel for the appellant. pointing to few relevant definitions
contained in Section 2 and Section 4 7 of the Act. urged that on the facts and
circumstances of the case, keeping in vie\1 the object and purpose of the Act.
relief ought to have been granted as sought in the \1Tit petition.

In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made
B submissions in suppoit and justification of the impugned order. He also drew
our attention to Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972
under which the appellant is granted invalidity pension which he is drawing.
According to him, in view of the relevant definitions contained in Section 2
of the Act, the appellant is not a person with disability as he is permanently
C incapacitated. He also drew our attention in suppo1t of his argument to Section
2(o) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral
Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 to make a
distinction.

For proper appreciation of the rival submissions of the learned counsel
D for the parties, it is useful and necessary to notice hw definitions as contained
in Section 2 and Section 4 7 of the Act.

"2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) to (d) ............................. .
E (e) "Cerebral palsy" means a group of non-progressive conditions of
a person characterized by abnonnal motor control posture resulting
from brain insult or injuries occurring in the pre-natal, peri-natal
or infant period of development;
(f) to (h) ............................ .
F (i) "disability" means-

(i) (i) to (iv) ..................... ..

(v) locomotor disability;

G (vi) to (vii) .................... .

U)
(k) "establishment" means a corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned
or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or
H a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies
KUN AL SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHlVARA.1 V. PATIL. .1.] 1063

A.ct 1956 (I of 1956) and includes Departments ofa Government: A
(I) to ( n) ........................ .

(o) "locon1otor disability'' 111eans disabilit} of the bones. joints or
n1uscles leading to substantial restriction of the n1ove1nent of tile
limbs or any form of cerebral palsy.
B
(p) to (s) ............................ .

(t) "persons with disability" means a person suffering from not less
than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical
authority;
(u) to (v) ............................ . c
(\V) "rehabilitation" refers to a process aimed at enabling persons with
disabilities to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory,
intellectual, psychiatric or social functional levels;"

··41. Non-discrimination in Government employments - (I) No D
establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee
who acquires a disability during his service;

Provided that, if an e1nployee, after acquiring disability is not
suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other
post \vith the sa1ne pay scale and service benefits; E
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee
against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a
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
F
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 G
notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this
section.''

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, his disability falls
under Section 2(i)(v), namely locomotor disability. What is meant by locomotor
disability is stated in Section 2(o). There is no dispute that the Act applies H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 1 S.C.R.

·-A to the establishment of the respondents and this establishment is not exempted
under any notification issued under Section 47 of the Act. "Persons with -
disability". means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability +- ...
as certified by a medical authority as per the definition given under Section
2(t).

B Short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the
appellant is entitled foio the benefit of Section 4 7 of the Act.

From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the disability
suffered by the appellant is covered by Section 2(i)(v) read with Section 2( o)
C of the Act. It is also not in dispute that this disability was acquired by the
appellant during his service. Under Section 2 "disability" and "person with
disability" are separately defined and they are distinct. We may also notice
some provisions in Chapter VI of the Act relating to employment. Section 32
deals with identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with
disabilities. Section 33 speaks of reservation of such percentage of vacancies
_D not less than 3% for persons ?r class of persons with disability of which l %
each shall be reserved for persons sufferingfrom (i) blindness or low vision;
(ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Section
38 requires the appropriate Governments and local authorities to formulate
schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. Section 4 7 is
E included in Chapter VIII of the Act. Chapter YI deals with employment
relating to persons with disabilities including identification of posts and
reservation of vacancies for such persons. Under this Chapter, reservation of
vacancies f?r persons 'Yith disabilities is made for initial appointments. Section
47 in Chapter VIII deals with. an employee of an establishment who acquires
a disability during his service.
F
The need for a c01nprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of
persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and
to· help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. To
realize objective that people with disabilities should have equal oppo1tunities
and keeping their hopes and aspirations in view a meeting called the 'Meet
G ·to Launch the Asian ~nd .Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons' was held in
Beijing in the firs.t week of De.cember, 1992 by the Asian and Pacific countries
to ensure 'full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the
As.ian and Pacific Regions'. "This Meeting was held by the Economic and
Social Commission tor Asia and Pacific. A Proclamation was adopted in the
H said meeting. India \Vas a signatory to the said Proclamation and they agreed
KUN AL SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHIV ARA.IV. PATIL. J.j I 065

to give effect to the sa111e. Pursuant thereto this Act \Vas enacted. which ca1ne A
into force on I st January, l 996. The Act provid~s so1ne sort of succour to the
disabled persons.

Chapter VI of the Act deals \\ ith en1ploy111ent relating to persons \Vith
1

disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in
Chapter VIII, deab with an employee, who is already in service and acquires B
a disability during his service. It must be horne in mind that Section 2 of the
Act has given distinct and different definitions of ·'disability" and "person
with disability". It is we\\ 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 1nust be remembered that person C
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 specifica\Jy. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would
nol only suffer himself, but possibly al\ 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 Section reads "no establishment shall dispense D
with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his
service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquirin_g
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
a
to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on supernumerary E
post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation,
whichever is earlier. Added to this no pro1notion shall be denied to a person
meu-ely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of
Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not
dispense \Vith or reduce in rank an e1nployee who acquires a disability during
the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too F
dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities,
protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object
of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs
the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Langu·age of Section 4 7 is
plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an G
employee acquiring disability during service ..

The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of
definition given in Section 2(t) of the Act that benefit of Section 47 is not
available to the appellant as he has suffered permanent invalidity cannot be
accepted. Because, the appellant was an employee, who has acquired H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12003] I S.C.R.

A 'disability' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act and not a person
with disability.

We have to notice one more aspect in relation to the appellant getting
invalidity pension as per Rule 38 of the CCS Pensions Rules. The Act is a
special Legislation dealing with persons with disabilities to provide equal
B oppo11unities, protection of rights and full participation to them. It being a
special .:!nactment, .• doctrine of generalia specialious non derogum would
apply. Hence Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules cannot
override Section 4 7 of the Act. Further Section 72 of the Act also supports
the case of the appellant, which reads: -
c ''72. Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.
- The provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being
in force or any rules, order or any instructions issued thereunder,
enacted or issued for the benefits of persons with disabilities."
D Merely b~cause under Rule 38 ofCCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant
got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made
available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Once it is held that the
appellant has· acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable
for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same
E pay-scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any·
post, he cou Id be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was
available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It
appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded
to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without
F considering the effect of other provisions of Section 47 of the Act.

For the reasons stated and discussions made above, the appeal deserves
to be accepted. Hence the impugned order affirming the order of termination
of services of the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We direct
the respondents to give relief in terms of Section 47 of the Act.
G There shall be no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.