Kerala High Court
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs P.R. Aji on 18 December, 2025
W.A.No.756 of 2024 1
2025:KER:97553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 756 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.6443 OF 2023 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CENTRAL OFFICE,
YOGASHEMA, JEEVAN BHEEMA MARG, P.B. NO.19953, MUMBAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 400021
2 THE ZONAL MANAGER, (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY),
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE,
P. B. NO. 2450, LIC BUILDING, 153 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002
3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PB NO.1001,
PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENTS:
P.R. AJI,AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. V. GOPENDRAKUMAR, ASSISTANT, L&HPF DEPARTMENT, LIC OF
INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PB NO.1001, PATTOM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REISIDING AT GOKULAM TC
NO.14/1336, NEAR HOUSING BOARD, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA
P.O., PIN - 695015
BY ADV.SRI S.M.PRASANTH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2025, THE COURT ON
18.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.756 of 2024 2
2025:KER:97553
Judgment
[W.A.No.756 of 2024]
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 25th March 2024 passed in WPC No.6443 of 2023 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition are the appellants in this Writ Appeal whereas the re- spondent herein was the petitioner in the Writ Petition.
2. The respondent had filed the Writ Petition claiming for the following reliefs:
i) To declare that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the tentative opinion formed to im-
pose compulsory retirement are in violation of protection and benefits guaranteed under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), 2016 and also the Fundamental Rights un- der Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
ii) To call for the records leading up to Ext.P9 and quash the same and all further proceedings pursuant to it by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. W.A.No.756 of 2024 3
2025:KER:97553
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or-
der or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service and provide her the protection available under Sec.20 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), 2016.
iv) To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circum- stances of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, while working as Assistant in the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the third appellant, was issued with suspension order dated 29.12.2021. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to her. She made a representation to the third appellant to drop the disciplinary proceedings against her in view of her men- tal illness. In response, she was directed to appear before the Gov- ernment Medical Board to obtain Medical Report regarding men- tal condition. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent culminated into imposition of the punishment of com- pulsory retirement. The respondent had filed the representation W.A.No.756 of 2024 4 2025:KER:97553 claiming the protection and benefits as guaranteed under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'RPwD' Act) as also violation of fundamental rights as guar- anteed under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further direction was sought to reinstate her as per the protection available under Section 20 of the RPwD Act. The appellants herein rejected the representation and issued a show cause notice dated 30th January 2023 calling the respondent to file reply as to why penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' under Rule 39(i)(h) of Life In- surance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 as amended on 19.10.2020 may not be imposed upon her. Being aggrieved, the respondent had filed the Writ Petition.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition as follows:
9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a per-
son who is mentally ill cannot be a accommodated in any of the posts in any of the offices that she has been creating all sorts of troubles to the co-employees and it is without taking a hard steps that an order of compulsory retirement was ordered that too taking into consideration the request of the employee. W.A.No.756 of 2024 5
2025:KER:97553 When the employer had granted voluntary retirement the pe- titioner has now taken an U turn and seeks protection under 20 of the Act. It is only on her application for VRS that the re- spondent had taken a decision to allow her to voluntary retire- ment. A perusal of Ext.P11 minutes of the meeting held on 02/02/2019 would show that the 1 st respondent was aware that the petitioner was not having a good mental health and she was under medication. It is seen that in the meeting the Senior Di- vision Manager had suggested the petitioner to take medica- tion which will give her immoral stability so that the people around will be comfortable. Thus it is a fact that the respond- ents were aware before the disciplinary proceedings were ini- tiated against the petitioner that the petitioner was not in good mental health. It is keeping in mind that the disciplinary pro- ceedings were taken forward and a Perusal of Ext.P7 enquiry proceedings would definitely prove that she was not having a good mental health. Many of the answers to the questions asked by the enquiry officer would prove the same. So the peti- tioner is a person with disability as defined under section 2(s) of the RPwD Act.
10. In such a situation, the petitioner is definitely entitled to the protection of non-discrimination and proviso to Sub clause 4 of Section 20 of the Act. As held by the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar (supra). The petitioner is entitled to be accommodated in a supernumerary post having the same pay scale and benefits and if it is not possible to adjust the petitioner against any post she should be accommodated in any supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or till superannuation whichever is earlier. This protection is granted by the RPwD Act is definitely a way giving right to the persons with disabilities and against discrimination in employment. When such protection is given by the Act, the petitioner cannot be compelled to take up Vol- untary Retirement Scheme and to accept the amount tendered by the employee. It is for the person to accept the offer of VRS, but the petitioner declined it. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled the protection guaranteed W.A.No.756 of 2024 6 2025:KER:97553 under section 20 of the RPwD Act as well as the protection un- der the Constitution of India. It is also come to notice that the show cause issued as per Ext. P9 took note of the medical cer- tificate issued by the medical board on 24/08/2022 that the pe- titioner is suffering from psychiatric illness and needs optimal course medication with regular follow up and the person can perform the duties under supervision.
In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is declared that the punishment of compulsory retirement to be imposed under Rule 39(1)(h) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and (Staff) Rules, 1960 as amended up to 19/10/2020, is illegal. The net result is that the petitioner shall be reinstated to the service of the 1st respondent and accommodated in any suita- ble post as mandate in Sub Section 4 of Section 20 of the RPwD Act and if any suitable post is not available she shall be rein- stated in any supernumerary post till a suitable post is available or she attains the age of superannuation. Necessary orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
5. On perusal of the above portion of the judgment, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has allowed the protection under Sec- tion 20 of the RPwD Act to the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge could not have directed them to reinstate her back in service and to accommodate in a super numerary post hav- W.A.No.756 of 2024 7
2025:KER:97553 ing the same pay scale and other benefits if it is not possible to ad- just her in any post and held that the respondent is entitled to pro- tection guaranteed under Section 20 of RPwD Act as well as protec- tion under Constitution of India, but failed to consider the fact that Ext.P9 is only a show cause notice and not a punishment order im- posing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The show cause notice was issued on the basis of enquiry report. In the absence of the disciplinary proceedings having not been culminated into pun- ishment and also the fact that the learned Single Judge has not quashed the disciplinary proceedings, the learned Single Judge could not have directed to accommodate the respondent or to cre- ate any supernumerary post. Further, the benefit of Section 20 of the RPwD Act would be available to the respondent only when she suffers disability to the extent of 40% as per the definition con- tained in Section 2(r). A 'Person with benchmark disability' means a person with not less than forty percent of a specified disability, W.A.No.756 of 2024 8 2025:KER:97553 where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disabil- ity has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certi- fying authority.
6.1 The learned counsel for the appellants further brought to the notice of this Court the statement of object and reasons of the RPwD Act. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Re- gion. The Act defines Persons with Disabilities as those having not less than forty percent disability and identified seven categories of disabilities, namely, blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, lo- comotor disability, mental retardation, mental illness and leprosy- cured.
W.A.No.756 of 2024 9
2025:KER:97553
7. In the Chapter VII (Certificate of Disability), Rule 17 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (for short 'Rules, 2017') provides as under:
17. Application for Disability Certificate and UDID Card.__(1) Any person with specified disability may apply in Form IV for a disa-
bility certificate/Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card and submit the application through UDID Portal to:-
(a) a medical authority or any other notified competent medical authority to issue such a certificate in the district of residence of the applicant as mentioned in the proof of residence in the application; or
(b) the concerned medical authority in a hospital where he may be undergoing or may have undergone treatment in connection with his disability:
Provided that where a person with disability is a minor or suf- fering from intellectual disability or any other Disability which renders him unfit or unable to make such an application him- self, the application on his behalf may be made by his legal guardian or by any organization registered under the Act hav- ing the minor under its care.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by__
(a) proof of identity;
(b) a recent photograph not older than six months;
(c) proof of residence;
(d) aadhaar number or aadhaar enrolment number.
Note.__ if an Aadhaar Card is submitted as proof of identity, no ad- ditional documents will be required for address proof in case Aadhaar has the same residential address.
W.A.No.756 of 2024 10
2025:KER:97553
18. Issue of disability certificate/UDID Card.__ (1) On receipt of an application under rule 17, the medical authority or any other no- tified competent authority shall, verify the information as provided by the applicant and shall assess the disability in terms of the rele- vant guidelines issued by the Central Government and after satisfy- ing himself that the applicant is a person with disability, issue a cer- tificate of disability in his favour in Form V and VI and one of the three types of colour-coded UDID Card in Form VII in his favour, as the case may be. One of the three types of colour-coded UDID Card shall be issued based on the severity of the disability__
a) White Band Card: When the disability percentage of a Person with Disability is below forty percent.
b) Yellow Band Card: When the disability percentage of a Person with Disability is forty percent or above but below eighty percent.
c) Blue Band Card: When the disability percentage of a Person with Disability is eighty percent or above.
(2) The medical authority shall issue the Disability Certificate and UDID card within three months, in case any disability is diagnosed. (3) In case, due to any reason not attributable to concerned Medical authority, no decision is taken by the Medical authority on the ap- plication of the applicant for a period above two years, such appli- cation shall be made inactive, and the applicant needs to apply afresh on portal, or approach the medical authority to re-activate the pending application.
(4) The medical authority shall, after due examination__
(i) issue a permanent Disability Certificate/UDID card in cases where there are no chances of improvement over time in the degree of disability; or W.A.No.756 of 2024 11 2025:KER:97553
(ii) issue a certificate of disability/UDID Card indicating the period of validity, in cases where there is any chance of im- provement over time in the degree of disability. (5) If an applicant is found ineligible for issuance of certificate of disability/UDID Card after assessment by Specialist or Medical Board or as the case may be, the medical authority shall convey the reasons to him in Form VIII through online platform within a pe- riod of one month from the date of such rejection. The aggrieved applicant may file appeal within ninety days of such rejection, us- ing the mechanism prescribed under section 59(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
(6) The State Government and Union territory Administration shall ensure that the certificate of disability/UDID Card is granted through online platform as notified by the Central Government.
19. Certificate issued under rule 18 to be generally valid for all purposes.- A person to whom the certificate issued under rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits ad- missible for persons with disabilities under schemes of the Govern- ment and of non-Governmental organizations funded by the Gov- ernment.
20. Validity of certificate of disability issued under the re- pealed Act.- The certificate of disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) shall continue to be valid after commencement of the Act for the period specified therein.
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is clear that a person suffering from disability has to apply in Form-IV to obtain the certificate/UDID Card. Only if this certificate is issued and the percentage of the disability being more than 40%, then only the W.A.No.756 of 2024 12 2025:KER:97553 benefits of the RPwD Act would be applicable. The aforesaid as- pects have not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition.
9. The judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Single Judge in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India1 is dis- tinguishable and would not have applicability to the facts and cir- cumstances of the present case in as much as in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) that person was having more than 40% disability to invoke the benefits of RPwD Act. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehe- mently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition since the respondent is suffering from mental illness which is a disability as understood 1 (2023) 2 SCC 209 W.A.No.756 of 2024 13 2025:KER:97553 under the provisions of the RPwD Act, in the light of Ext.P1 disa- bility certificate issued by the Medical Board. Therefore, the RPwD Act would have full application. The learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act would be applicable. The alleged misconduct disclosed in the memorandum of charges has taken place due to mental ill- ness and the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, has allowed the Writ Petition. No interference is called for and the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. Heard Sri S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the appel- lants and Sri S.M.Prasanth, the learned counsel for the respond- ent.
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear as daylight that the provisions of RPwD Act would be applicable only to those persons who suffer 40% or more disability. The learned Single W.A.No.756 of 2024 14 2025:KER:97553 Judge has relied on Ext.P1 Medical Certificate issued by the Medi- cal Board which only discloses the nature of element as under:
"On evaluation, Mrs.Aji is suffering from Psychotic illness and need optional dose of medication with regular follow up. She can perform her duties under supervision."
The said certificate does not disclose the percentage of disabil- ity. Admittedly, 40% minimum disability is required to get the benefit of RPwD Act. Even the respondent has not placed on record that she had applied for the Disability Certificate/UDID Card as per the requirement of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules, 2017. The appellants had issued only show cause notice, Ext.P9, and no final order of punishment of compulsory retirement was passed, therefore, the learned Single Judge would not have di- rected reinstatement on any post including creation of super- numerary post since the disciplinary proceedings itself had not culminated into a punishment. In the absence of the aforesaid W.A.No.756 of 2024 15 2025:KER:97553 requirements to get the benefit of RPwD Act, the appellants were right in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
13. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the provisions of the RPwD Act and the Rules, 2017 before passing the judgment. Accordingly, the judg- ment impugned dated 25.03.2024 passed in WPC No.6443 of 2023 is set aside.
14. The appellants would be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same in accord- ance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
15. It is clarified that since no punishment whatsoever including compulsory retirement has been imposed on the re- spondent, the question of payment of retiral dues would not W.A.No.756 of 2024 16 2025:KER:97553 arise for the time being subject to conclusion of departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE css/ W.A.No.756 of 2024 17 2025:KER:97553 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 756 OF 2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER