LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 916Decided 17 Dec 2021
Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Surya Kant · Justice Vikram Nath

Background

The appellant, a government employee (CRPF) diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia (a mental illness), faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct linked to his condition. He challenged the proceedings, arguing they discriminated against him on the basis of his mental disability and should be examined under the newer Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016, rather than the older 1995 disability law under which the authorities claimed a protected "privilege" to proceed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings had to be tested against the RPwD Act 2016, not the 1995 Act, because the "privilege" the department claimed under a 2002 notification had never actually accrued: it only becomes available once a punishment is imposed, and here the proceedings were challenged before reaching that stage. The Court held that the 2002 notification was not protected or saved by the RPwD Act's savings clause. On the substance, the Court found that initiating disciplinary action against a person whose mental disability contributed to the alleged misconduct amounts to indirect discrimination, even if the disability was not the sole cause of the conduct, because such persons face a disproportionate disadvantage compared to able-bodied employees. The Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings relating to the first enquiry and directed that if the appellant is reassigned to another post, his pay and service conditions must be protected, while also permitting authorities to keep him away from duties involving firearms for safety reasons.

Lesson Learnt

Employees with mental health conditions are entitled to protection from discriminatory disciplinary action under India's disability rights law, even when a disability isn't the sole reason behind an alleged lapse, taking action against an employee without accounting for how the disability contributed can itself amount to unlawful discrimination.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case