Delhi HC Declines Reinstatement to Income Tax Employee Who Opted for Voluntary Retirement Despite Disability Claim [Read Order]
The Bench clarified that the reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent by the petitioner did not pertain to voluntary retirement
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing a plea on reinstatement into government service. The Court held that the statutory protection under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 cannot be invoked in cases where voluntary retirement was sought and accepted at the employee’s own request.
The petitioner was appointed in the Income Tax Department under the Physically Handicap (PH) quota. He contended that he was posted in an office situated on the second floor and had requested posting on the ground floor, but the request was not accepted.
Subsequently, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on August 28, 2013 and April 24, 2014, both of which were declined. However, his application dated November 11, 2014 was accepted, and he was permitted to retire from government service under Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Later in 2023, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking reinstatement into service. The Tribunal dismissed the original application in September 2025, followed by the rejection of the review application in November 2025, noting that the petitioner had voluntarily retired after serving the department for nearly 21 years.
During hearing, the Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan examined the reliance placed on Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board.
The High Court held that Section 47 prohibits discrimination, termination, or reduction in rank on account of disability but does not extend to cases where an employee seeks voluntary retirement. It further clarified that the Supreme Court ruling cited by the petitioner did not pertain to voluntary retirement.
As a result, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
