LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101+210 CM-8574-LPA-2025 in/& LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision :22.07.2026 Union of India and others ...Appellants Versus Prem Sagar (Deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for the appellants-UOI. Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-8574-LPA-2025 As prayed for, application is allowed. Medical record is taken on record. LPA-1646-2017 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-4930- 2016 whereby, the resignation submitted by the respondent and accepted by the appellants via order dated 14.06.2001 due to the fact that the respondent was placed in low medical category, and he was unable to discharge his official duties has been held to be bad so as to treat the respondent in continuous service from 2001 to decide the application for resignation or retirement as made by respondent under Rule 19 or Rule 25 of the Border AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) -2- Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSF Rules’). 2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. 3. The respondent was recruited as a constable (GD) in the BSD and while working at ‘C Coy 16 Bn BSF and discharging the duty of a driver, he suffered an accident in which accident, his both bones of right leg (RTA) was fractured and hence, he became disabled to perform the duties of a driver. Keeping in view the said injury suffered by the respondent, he was placed in low medical category by the appellant and as no other job was assigned to the respondent and as he was unable to discharge the duties of the post of driver, the respondent submitted a resignation, which was accepted by the appellant vide order dated 14.06.2001. 4. Later on, the acceptance of said resignation was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the application which was accepted and treated as resignation was only a permission being sought to submit resignation and no actual resignation was submitted by the respondent and accepting the same to be a resignation by the appellant is incorrect, which assertion of the respondent was accepted by the learned Single Judge and a direction has been given vide order dated 05.07.2017 to the appellant to treat the period for which the respondent remained out of service, till the passing of the order, as a duty period so as to grant the respondent benefits as admissible to him including the retiral benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that once, a resignation was submitted and accepted, the respondent could not have wriggled out of the same especially when, the grievance was raised after a AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) -3- period of 15 years of acceptance of the said resignation and hence, order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. It is a conceded position before this Court that while discharging the official duty as driver the respondent suffered an accident in which accident his leg was fractured due to which injury, he was unable to perform his duties and he was placed in low medical category by the appellants themselves. The low medical category means that the respondent is not able to discharge the duties of the driver. As no other option was given to the respondent to perform the duties on any other post, which he could have done with the sustained injury, the respondent filed an application seeking permission to submit a resignation from the post which application was treated as resignation itself via order dated 14.06.2001 and the respondent was not allowed to perform the duty thereafter. 8. The question which arises is, whether the respondent was entitled for the benefit of Section 47 of the The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Act’). The said section is reproduced hereunder:- 47. Non-discrimination in Government employment .-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could 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 he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2)No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) -4- Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 9. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that in case, any employee suffers a disability while performing his/her duty and is not able to perform the duty of such post, the efforts are to be made to adjust him/her on any other post and in case, the same cannot be done then, an employer is liable to pay him/her the salary up to the date he/she attains the age of superannuation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute that once, the respondent was not able to discharge the duty due to the injury suffered by him in an accident while on duty and he was not able to drive a vehicle due to such injury and was placed under low medical category, the appellants were liable to adjust him on any other post suitable to him, which act was not undertaken by the appellant and rather the respondent was made to resign so as to forfeit all his service benefits and other pensionary benefits admissible to him in respect of the service he had already rendered. 11. It may be noticed that such action is contrary to the section 47- A of the 1995 Act, the resignation which was submitted by the respondent by giving a due reason that he had suffered an injury in an accident while performing the duty of his post and now due to such injury, he cannot perform his duties, the said resignation cannot be treated as voluntary resignation but the same is forced resignation keeping in view the injury suffered. 12. Further, being a welfare State, even if an employee does not know about his/her right, he/she should have been guided that either to AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1646-2017 (O&M) -5- submit application for voluntary retirement so as to seek the other benefits which are admissible under the Rule 19 & 25 of BSF Rules . 13. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accident which occurred during the performance of the duty which led to placement of respondent in low medical category that he was not able to perform the duty of the post of driver, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that such acceptance of the resignation is incorrect as the resignation was not voluntary resignation but was a forced resignation due to the injury suffered, which fact is cleared from the application submitted by the respondent seeking permission to resign itself via application dated 04.06.1999. 14. It is further noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent has unfortunately died. As of now, though, there was initially an interim order but subsequently vacated, but till the death of the respondent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been implemented. Keeping in view the exceptional facts and circumstances of the present case, especially when, order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been shown to be perverse either on facts or law coupled with the fact that under the 1995 Act, a disabled person is entitled to continue in service till he/she attains the age of superannuation, the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference at the hands of this Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 15. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, is disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 22, 2026 aarti Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document