Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajveer vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 18 March, 2026
1
Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2050/2015
This the 18th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
1. Baleshwari
Widow of late Rajbeer Singh (since deceased) Village Roza
Yakubpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Roza Yakubpur, Uttar
Pradesh- 201009
2. Arun Kumar
Son of late Rajbeer Singh (since deceased) Village Roza
Yakubpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Roza Yakubpur, Uttar
Pradesh-201009
3. Rahul
Son of late Rajbeer Singh (since deceased) Village Roza
Yakubpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Roza Yakubpur, Uttar
Pradesh-201009
4. Sachin
Son of late Rajbeer Singh (since deceased) Village Roza
Yakubpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Roza Yakubpur, Uttar
Pradesh -201009
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee)
Versus
1. All India Institute of Medical Science
Through Director Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029
2. National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre
Through Assistant Administrative Officer
All India Institute of Medical Sciences CGO Complex-II,
Kamla Nehri Nagar, Ghaziabad UP
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Ms. Kashika Singh for
AIIMS)
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.04.02
17:15:01+05'30'
2
Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
" (i) Pass an order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 5.09.2014 and notice of termination dated 9.07.2014 and consequently reinstate the Applicant in service
(ii) Pass an order giving an alternative employment in the same pay scale to the Applicant under the protection envisioned under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
(iii) Pass an order directing the respondents to consider the Applicant for an alternative pcst having lighter duty n view of the certificate dated 9.09.2013
(iv) pass any other order or orders may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing the counter reply. During the pendency of the OA, unfortunately the original applicant expired on 01.08.2016 and the legal heirs of the original applicant have got themselves substituted. Thus, the present OA is being prosecuted through the legal heirs of the original applicant.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant joined the services of the respondents as Mali on daily wages basis and was granted KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 3 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 temporary status by the respondents w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (Annexure A-2)
5. Vide order dated 05.09.2003 (Annexure A-3), the applicant was transferred from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to National Drug Dependence Treatment (NDDT) Centre Ghaziabad. During the applicant‟s such employment, the applicant met with an accident on 08.04.2008 for which he underwent treatment in AIIMS. As the applicant was finding it difficult to perform his duties at NDDT Centre Ghaziabad, at his request, the applicant was transferred back to AIIMS on 04.11.2008.
6. The respondents, vide order dated 03.01.2009, in pursuance to the decision of the Standing Finance Committee in its meeting held on 07.05.2008 and ratified by the Governing body in its meeting held on 13.08.2008, ordered for regularization of various persons including the original applicant for the post of Mali in the pay scale of 2610-4000 (pre revise plus usual allowances) (Annexure A-9), with various conditions, including subject to production of certificate of fitness of Medical Superintendent of the institute before joining the post. The original applicant submitted his medical certificate dated 02.02.2009 duly issued by the Head of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS and counter signed by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS (Annexure A-10(Colly)).
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.04.02
17:15:01+05'30'
4
Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015
7. The applicant has also annexed the prescription dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure A-16) wherein attending Doctor has recommended the applicant to be accommodated for light duty. The applicant has been discharging his duties as assigned to him and drawing salary as apparent from various salary slips in the basic pay of Rs. 8,310/- (Annexure A-12). However, the respondents issued the impugned notice of termination dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure A-26). The applicant preferred a reply dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure A-27) to the said notice. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order of termination dated 05.09.2014. Thus, the present OA.
8. Ms. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the applicants, has extensively argued that the applicant was admittedly engaged by the competent authority, temporary status was granted to him by the competent authority and the competent authority amongst the respondents had passed the order dated 03.01.2009 for regularization of the applicant, alongwith various others, with conditions as stipulated therein which included production of a medical certificate. The applicant had submitted the required medical certificate and had not only been attending his duties, as assigned to him by his seniors, but had also been getting the salary. Thus, the applicant continued on regular employment of the respondents, till the impugned order of termination was passed by the respondents.
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.04.02
17:15:01+05'30'
5
Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015
9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the disability acquired by the applicant has been during his employment under the respondents and, therefore, the applicant became entitled for the benefits flowing from "The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995", as amended from time to time and the relevant instructions from the Government of India through the DoP&T on the subject. She submits that in view of Section 47 of the Act, the impugned notice and orders terminating the services of the applicant, on the ground of the applicant being not fit to perform the duties of Mali is bad in law and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and the applicant is entitled for consequential benefits. She further submits that the representation(s) preferred by the applicant had not been disposed of by the respondents to release his dues and also to assign him appropriate duties.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed on record an OM dated 17.05.2022 in support of her such contention. She has further argued that as during the pendency of the OA, the original applicant has unfortunately expired and his legal heirs are prosecuting the matter by coming on record. Further, this Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to modify the relief sought by the applicant and in this regard she has placed reliance on KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 6 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. B.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He has argued as under:
I) That in view of unfortunate demise of the original applicant, the relief sought by the legal heirs of the applicant for reinstatement cannot be granted and the very relief clause 8
(i) becomes infructuous and setiing aside of the impugned notice and orders will only be a futile exercise; II) The medical certificate dated 04.03.2014, given to the applicant by the duly constituted Board and annexed with the counter reply of the respondents, is not under challenge and in light of such medical certificate, there is no illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned notice/orders and thus interference by the Tribunal while exercising judicial review is not warranted;
III) Even the medical certificate dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure A-
10), being referred and relied by the legal heirs of the applicant, is of no help inasmuch as the same does not certify that the applicant was fit to assume the charge of the post he was holding at that time and it simply certifies that he was KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 7 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 physically handicapped with 75% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left half of the body.
12. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, perused the documents available on record.
13. From the aforesaid admitted position, it is evident that the order for regularization of the applicant was passed by the competent authority under the respondents. The impugned notice/orders have been passed only on account the applicant not being found fit to assume the post as held in the report of the Medical Board dated 04.03.2014.
14. The order of regularization was ordered by the respondents, of course, subject to production of medical certificate and the conditions prescribed in such order of regularization. Para 3 (i) of such conditions reads as under:
"3. The appointment The appointment will be further subject to :-
i) The production of a certificate of fitness from the Medical Superintendent of the Institute before joining the post which they should contact the Officer-in-Charge, OPD Services, Room No.24 between 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. on am working day for their medical examination."
15. The aforesaid condition qua production of medical certificate by the applicant indicates that the applicant was required to produce a certificate of fitness from the Medical KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 8 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 Superintendent of the Institute before joining the post for which he was supposed to contact the Officer-in-Charge, OPD Services on any working day. Admittedly, his medical certificate dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure A-10 (colly)) had been issued by a team of doctors consisting of a Senior Resident, Consultant and Head of Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS, New Delhi and such certificate is admittedly duly counter signed by a medical Superintendent. Of course, such medical certificate does not disclose that the applicant was fit to join the post of Mali or any other post, however, it indicates that he has suffered 75% medical disability and such disability was acquired by him admittedly during the course of his employment under the respondents. Such certificate has also mentioned that the said condition of the applicant was likely to change and reassessment was recommended after three years. Another certificate being referred and relied by the applicant is dated 09.09.2013, issued by the Cardiothoracic and Neurosciences Centre, O.P.D, AIIIMS, New Delhi. This certificate has been issued by Professor, Department of Neurology, Neurosciences Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi and certifies that "patient can work with limited capacity. He may be accommodated for light duty".
16. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the respondents had taken any steps to accommodate the applicant KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 9 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 to any other post for light duty and the applicant continued with whatever duties the respondents assigned to him till he was terminated by way of the impugned order. Till such time, the applicant has been drawing his regular salary. In this background, we have no hesitation to hold that the applicant stood regularized as he was fulfilling the aforesaid condition of submitting a certificate inasmuch as though the applicant was medically found to be disabled by a team of competent doctors, of course with recommendation to be assigned light duty, the respondents instead of taking steps for assigning light duty to the applicant, they on the basis of a medical certificate dated 04.03.2014 issued by a Medical Board constituted by the respondents, terminated the services of the applicant. Such medical certificate under the head „Final Report/Opinion‟ records that "Considering all these findings, members of the medical board were of the opinion that Mr. Rajbir is unfit to perform the duties as a Mali". However, placing reliance on such medical certificate dated 04.03.2014, the respondents had issued the impugned order terminating the applicant and they didn‟t take steps to accommodate him on a suitable post.
17. Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, reads as under:
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 10 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 "47. (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 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 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."
18. The aforesaid Act has been amended from time to time and the amended Act of 2017, under Section 20, reads as under:
"20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
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. exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall 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 KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 11 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(5) The appropriate Government may Frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities."
19. The DoP&T vide Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 under para 4 has provided as under:
"4. NO DENIAL OF PROMOTION MERELY ON THE GROUND OF DISABILITY 4.1 In terms of Section 20(3) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. Further, in terms of Section 20(4) of the Act, no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his/her service. As per the proviso to this sub-section, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. This section further provides 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. However, in case the PwBDs for whom the supernumerary post was created is eligible for next promotion to higher pay level, and it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, a fresh creation of supernumerary post in next higher level will be required by surrendering the previously created supernumerary post at the lower level, and the proposal for the same may be submitted to the Department of Expenditure. 4.2 An employee who acquires disability, after entering into service, will be entitled to get the benefit of reservation in promotion as a PwBD. However, his seniority among PwBDs will be counted from the date of certification of his/her disability, i.e., disability of 40% or more in the categories covered under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016."
20. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Policy of the Government of India, it is crystal clear that once an employee who acquires a disability during service, no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank of such employee on the ground of such disability. Admittedly, the applicant had acquired disability while being KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.04.02 17:15:01+05'30' 12 Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015 under the employment of the respondents and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the action of the respondents in terminating his services is bad in law.
21. Now the issue arises as to what relief can be granted in the present matter. Law is settled that in appropriate facts and circumstances, the Tribunal can appropriately mould the relief. In this regard we draw support in this regard from what has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in para 12 of B.C. Chaturvedi (Supra) wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that "...the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate with the facts of each case."
22. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed with the following directions:-
i. The impugned notice dated 09.07.2014 and the impugned order dated 05.09.2014 are set aside; ii. The original applicant shall held to be in service from the date he had been terminated till the date of his unfortunate demise;
iii. The applicant shall be entitled for consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances for the admissible period;
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.04.02
17:15:01+05'30'
13
Item No. 55/ C-2 O.A. No. 2050/2015
iv. The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order with regard to the payment of salary of the applicant for the admissible period for which he was not paid v. The legal heirs of the applicant shall be entitled for death-
cum-retiral benefits in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject vi. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
23. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.04.02
17:15:01+05'30'