Madras High Court
Unknown vs A.Marimuthu on 9 May, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.1864 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 26.11.2024
Pronounced On 09.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1864 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.13470 of 2024
1.Union of India,
Rep by The Chairman,
Railway Board,
New Delhi.
2.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
3.The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
4.The Principal Chief Materials Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
5.The Chief Material Manager,
General Stores Depot (PER),
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
W.A.No.1864 of 2024
6.The Senior Material Manager,
Loco Stores Depot (PER),
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023. ... Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
1.A.Marimuthu
2.The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Sarojini House,
Bhagavandas Road,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, pleased to set aside the
Order dated 20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.16796 of 2022.
For Appellants : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General of India
for Mr.S.Janarthanam
For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
This intra Court appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
20.09.2023 made in W.P.No.16796 of 2022.
2. By the impugned order, the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
filed by the appellants/petitioners. Operative portion of the order of the Writ
Court reads as under:-
“8. In Civil Appeal No.9324 of 2022 dated
02.07.2013 [Geetaben Ratilal Patel vs. District
Primary Education Officer] the Honourable Apex
Court after considering various provisions under the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995, in para 16 held as follows:
"16. The provisions of Sections 47 and 62 of
the Act, when read together, empower the
Commissioner, to look into the complaint with respect
to the matters relating to deprivation of rights of
persons with disabilities and non-implementation of
laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders,
guidelines or instructions issued by the appropriate
Governments or local authorities and to take up the
matter with the appropriate authorities for the
welfare and protection of rights of persons with
disabilities including matter relating to dispensation
with service or reduction in rank. The power of the
Commissioner "to look into the complaints with
respect to the matters relating to deprivation of
rights" as provided under Section 62 of the Act is not
an empty formality and the Commissioner is required
to apply his mind on the question raised by the
complainant to find out the truth behind the
complaint. If so necessary, the Commissioner may
suo motu inquire into the matter and/or after giving
notice, hearing the concerned parties and going
through the records may decide the complaint. If it
comes to the notice of the Commissioner that a
person with disability has been deprived of his rights
or that the authorities have flouted any law, rule,
guideline, instruction, etc., issued by the appropriate
Government or local authorities, the Commissioner is
required to take up the matter with the appropriate
authority to ensure restoration of rights of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
disabled person and/or to implement the law, rule,
guideline, instruction if not followed. A complaint
may be made by any disabled person himself or any
person on behalf of disabled persons or by any
person in the interest of disabled persons. Thus the
issue as involved is decided affirmatively in favour of
the appellant and against the respondent."
9. As per the above dictum of Apex Court and
Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, this Court is of the view that the
recommendation made by the 2nd Respondent cannot
be found fault with.
10. It is an admitted case of the Petitioner that
since there was no post available in Grade Pay of
Rs.2,400/- which was the Grade Pay drawn by the 1st
Respondent, at the time of medical decategarisation
he was accommodated as Junior Clerk with Grade
Pay Rs.1,900/-. In view of the above factual aspect
the very act of the Writ Petitioner reducing the pay
scale from Rs. 2,400/- to Rs.1,900/- is not valid as per
the Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
11. In such a view of the matter, the Writ
Petitioner cannot deny the Pay Scale and it is an
obligation on the part of the Writ Petitioner to protect
the pay scale and service benefits to the 1"
Respondent who acquired disability during the
employment. Even there is no alternative post
available in the same Grade Pay, it is an obligation
on the part of the Writ Petitioner to keep the 1 st
Respondent on a supernumerary post until suitable
post is available or he attains the age of
superannuation, whichever is earlier as per Section
20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
12. In such a view of the matter the Writ
Petition has to fail. The Writ Petitioner has to comply
with the mandate of Section 20 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by granting
protection to the same pay scale and service benefits
to the 1st Respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
13. With the above observation the Writ Petition
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
3. The Appellants had filed the above Writ Petition for the following
relief:-
“to quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 of the 2nd
Respondent, passed in Complaint No.12086/1021/2020 as the
same is unsustainable in law and also against the Principles of
Natural Justice.”
4. The said order was not passed by the second respondent namely, the
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. It was actually passed by the
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in the office of the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Operative portion of the said order
dated 06.01.2021 of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, impugned
before the Writ Court reads as under:-
“4.Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention
Section 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Provision is reproduced below:-
Section 20(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 a suitable post is available or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is
earlier.
5.Two important elements of this provision which are
relevant in the present complaint are that – a) employee who has
acquired disability shall not be reduced in rank and b) if he is not
suitable for the post he was holding, he may be shifted to other
post but his pay scale and service benefits have to be kept intact.
6.In the present complaint, pay scale of the Complainant
was reduced from 2400 to 1900. Pay scale at the time of
appointment of the Complainant was 2000. Hence the new pay
scale, i.e. 1900 is lesser that the pay scale at which he was
appointed and also less than the pay scale he was employed upon
at the time of acquiring disability.
7.Hon'ble Kerala High Court in SAJIMON KB V. KERALA
STATE ROAD TRASNPORT CORPORATION 2019 SCC Online
Ker 7139: (2020) 1 KLJ 513 held that when as per Section 20(4)
of RPWD Act, 2016, an employee is eligible for lower category
change, it does not stiupulate anything to the lower scale of pay
hence such employee would be eligible for protection of pay
before the category change.
8.Hence, this Court concludes that reducing pay scale of
the Complaint from 2400 to 1900 is gross violation of provisions
of RPWD Act, 2016. This Court recommends that the Respondent
shall secure and restore the pay scale and other service benefits of
the complainant to the level at which they existed on the day
before the Complainant was declared not suitable for the post he
was holding just before acquiring disability.”
5. By an order dated 06.01.2021, the Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities had passed an order in Case No.12086/1021/2020 and rejected the
request of the first respondent for being considered to the post of Senior Clerk.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
6. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a
Constable on 25.09.1984 with a grade pay of Rs.2000/- in the Railway
Protection Force. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Head Constable on
21.12.2006 with a Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-. While serving as a Head Constable,
the 1st respondent met with an accident in the year 2013 and with another
accident on 10.07.2014. The 1st respondent was assessed with disabilities and
therefore could not continue to work as a Head Constable.
7. Under these circumstances, the 1st respondent was accommodated as a
Junior Clerk with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-. However, the 1st respondent was
given a pay protection in accordance with Section 20 of the Rights of the
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
8. The endeavour of the 1st respondent before the second respondent was
that he should be absorbed as a Senior Clerk. However, it is the contention of
appellants that there was no monetary loss to the 1st respondent when the
petitioner was accommodated as a Junior Clerk with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-.
9. That apart, it is the contention of the appellants that there is no post
with Grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and therefore the 1st respondent was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
accommodated in the post of Junior Clerk with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- while
protecting the pay grade of Rs.2400/-.
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities dated 06.01.2021, copy of the complaint dated 15.03.2021 of
the 1st Petitioner was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent, the Chief Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities to restore the pay scale and service benefits as
recommended by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in its order
dated 06.01.2021.
11. The 2nd Respondent, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities took a decision in Case No.12086/1021/2020 dated 15.03.2021 to
implement the decision of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated
06.01.2021. Aggrieved by the decision of the 2nd Respondent Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in Writ Petition, the appellant filed
W.P.No.16796 of 2024. The Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition with the
above observations.
12. Although copy of the proceedings dated 15.03.2021 of the 2nd
Respondent Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities bearing reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
No.12086/1021/2020 has not been filed, its content is discernible from a reading
of Para No.23 of the affidavit filed in CMP.No.9725 of 2024 in W.A.No.1864 of
2024 and order in W.P.No.16796 of 2022. Paragraph No.23 of the affidavit filed
in CMP.No.9725 of 2024 reads as under:-
23.The Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that
the claim of the 1st Respondent had already been considered by
Dy.Chief Materials Manager, General Stores Depot, Perambur,
Southern Materials Manager, General Stores Depot, Perambur,
Southern Railway vide his order dated 23.05.2019 duly rejecting
the claim of the 1st Respondent herein with valid reasons. This
order was passed in compliance with the orders dated 25.01.2019
passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench in O.A.No.71 of 2019 and this order of Dy.Chief Materials
Manager, General Stores Depot, Perambur, Southern Railway has
become final and till today this order has not been challenged.
Therefore, when the valid order has already been passed which
has not been challenged and allowed to become final, the
impugned order dated 06.01.2021 of the 2nd Respondent cannot be
implemented. In such circumstances, the Appellants have brought
to the notice of the 2nd Respondent on 15.03.2021 which
presumably under Section 76 of the Act. However, the 2nd
Respondent failed to act on the representation of the petitioners
dated 15.03.2021.
13. It is the further case of the appellants that the demand of the 1 st
respondent being accommodated as a senior clerk cannot be countenanced as
there is no post i.e., available with a Grade pay of Rs.2400/- and that the post of
senior clerk carries grade pay of Rs.2800/- and therefore the order passed by the
Writ Court was erroneous and was therefore liable to be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
14. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India for the petitioners and the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents.
15. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2021 allowing the prayer of the
first respondent, the fifth appellant had filed an appeal before the second
respondent stating that the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities did not
have jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2021 impugned in the
Writ Petition. The appeal was filed as early as 10.03.2021.
16. Meanwhile, the first respondent had filed Writ Petition in
W.P.No.15182 of 2021, wherein, the first respondent herein prayed for a
mandamus to direct the respondents therein namely The Chairman, Railway
Board, Railway Bhavan, Raisana Road, New Delhi and The Commissioner for
Persons with Disability, Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities (DIVYANGJAN), Sarojini House, Bhagavandas Road, New Delhi
to implement the order dated 06.01.2021.
17. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.07.2021 by directing the
Chairman of the Railway Board, the first respondent therein to consider and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 04.02.2021 and 19.04.2021 in
the light of the order dated 06.01.2021 of the Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities.
18. The said Writ Petition was disposed on 23.07.2021 without making
any observations on merits. It was not brought to the knowledge of the Court
regarding pendency of the appeal against the order dated 06.01.2021 of the
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, the second respondent on
10.03.2021. The appellants herein had subsequently filed W.P.No.16796 of
2022, wherein, the order of the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2021 was
challenged. The second Writ Petition challenging the same ought not to have
been entertained by the Writ Court in the first place in view of the order dated
23.07.2021 in W.P.No.15182 of 2021 at the behest of the first respondent. Even
otherwise, it was incumbent on the part of the appellants to have brought to the
notice of the Writ Court on 23.07.2021 that already an appeal was pending
before the second respondent herein against the order dated 06.01.2021.
19. Suffice to state that further orders to be passed pursuant to omnibus
order dated 23.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.15182 of 2021 would have settled all
the pending issues. Instead, the appellants chose to file W.P.No.16796 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
before the Writ Court. The Writ Court could have simply closed the Writ
Petition as infructuous, in the light of omnibus order dated 23.07.2021 in
W.P.No.15182 of 2021.
20. In case, the appellants wanted to challenge the order dated 06.01.2021
of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities independently which was
subject matter of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2021 in W.P.No.15182 of 2021,
the appellants ought to have first filed an application to review the aforesaid
order dated 23.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.15182 of 2021 to have it recalled.
Instead, the appellants challenged order dated 06.01.2021 of the Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities in W.P.No.16796 of 2022 independently.
21. The Writ Court has come to a fair conclusion on merits holding that
the appellants cannot deny the Pay Scale and it is an obligation on the part of
the appellants to protect the Pay Scale and service benefits to the first
respondent who acquired disability during the employment.
22. In our view, the reasoning of the Writ Court that even if there is no
alternative post was available in the same Grade Pay, it was obligation to keep
the first respondent in a supernumerary post until suitable post was available for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
accommodating the first respondent or till the first respondent attains the age of
superannuation, whichever was earlier as per Section 20 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
23. We find no reasons to take a different stand taken by the Writ Court to
deny the relief that has already been granted to the first respondent by the Writ
Court twice once in W.P.No.15182 of 2021 vide its order dated 23.07.2021 and
for 2nd time vide impugned order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No.16796 of 2022.
24. The Writ Court has applied its mind. Thus, it does not merit any
interference in the hands of this Court in this Appeal. Thus, the Writ Petition
filed by the appellants was devoid of merits in W.P.No.16796 of 2022 vide
impugned order dated 20.09.2023.
25. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[R.S.K., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
09.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
jas
To
1.Union of India,
Rep by The Chairman,
Railway Board,
New Delhi.
2.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
3.The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
4.The Principal Chief Materials Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 3.
5.The Chief Material Manager,
General Stores Depot (PER),
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.
6.The Senior Material Manager,
Loco Stores Depot (PER),
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023.
7.The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Sarojini House,
Bhagavandas Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
and
09.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/05/2025 05:45:21 pm )
