Nagpur: Drawing a clear distinction between protection of service and entitlement to promotion, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week held that shifting a disabled employee to a suitable post under Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 1995, cannot disturb the seniority of employees already working in that cadre.Justice Mahendra Chandwani dismissed a plea filed by Rameshwar Surve, a zilla parishad employee from Yavatmal, underscoring that the law does not permit altering existing hierarchies to accommodate such transfers.“The contention that petitioner’s previous service be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the cadre of extension officer (panchayat) cannot be accepted, particularly when other employees who are being affected by this order are not a party to this petition,” the judge said.Surve was appointed as a lab technician in 2002 and developed low vision in 2010. Following court directions in 2016, he was absorbed as an extension officer (panchayat) with same pay scale. However, he was placed at bottom of the seniority list in new cadre. When a promotion list for Maharashtra Vikas Seva Group-B was issued in 2023, his name was excluded, prompting the legal challenge.Arguing that his earlier service should be counted for seniority, the petitioner relied on Section 47 of 1995 Act, which mandates protection of employees acquiring disability. The court, however, clarified the scope of the provision, saying “promotion is not a vested right” and the law only bars denial of promotion only on the ground of disability.The judgment emphasised that Section 47 operates in two parts — protection against dismissal or reduction in rank, and against discrimination in promotion — and neither provision justifies disturbing seniority of other employees. “The legislative intent is to continue protection of employment. It can’t be at the detriment of another employee who is working on a regular basis in a cadre,” the court said.The judge further noted that Surve sought the transfer himself and accepted the condition of being placed at the tail-end of the seniority list, continuing in the role for over six years before raising objections and moving court. He also found the petitioner did not meet the minimum requirement of seven years’ service in the new post.Rejecting reliance on earlier judgments, the court concluded there was no violation of Sec 47, adding “promotion cannot be given by putting seniority of existing senior employees in jeopardy.”
