KUNAL SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 13-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 of Rights and c 
Full Participation) Act, 1995; Sections 2 and 47: Injury caused to employee 
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 
-
t 
' 
.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.