1 CGHC010049012019 2026:CGHC:31284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1058 of 2019 Anita Netam, D/o. Sonku Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village Chhote Tumnar, Post - Chhote Tumnar, Tahsil And Police Station Geedam, District – Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India (Deleted ) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-01- 2026 & 18-02-2026 2 - Inspector General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Range CRPF, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commandant - 241, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents & ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.23 17:20:58 +0530 2 WPS No. 7922 of 2019 Shanti Salam, D/o. Motiram Salam, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Village Remawand, Tahsil Nararyanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, Terminated Constable/G.D. (Mahila) In C.R.P.F. 241 Battalion, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - (Deleted) Union Of India As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-01- 2026 & 18-02-2026. 2 - Inspector General Of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Range CRPF, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commandant-241 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 3 22.07.2026 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these petition is to the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Respondent No.4 by which the petitioners’ services have been terminated, which was affirmed by the order dated 28.10.2018 passed in appeal by the Respondent No.2 finding no merit. 3. Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners have developed medical disability of hypermetropia during the course of employment, therefore, provisions of Section 20(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “the Act of 2016”) would apply and reasonable accommodation ought to have been granted to the petitioners, which has not been considered and decided and appeals have only been decided after referring the petitioners to review medical board and after accepting the test report of the said medical board, which is totally contrary to the facts and law available on the record; therefore, both the petitions deserve to be allowed. 4. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioners were subjected to review medical board and 4 upon test report of the review medical examination, the petitioners were medically found unfit due to hypermetropia, therefore, their appeals have been dismissed. He would further submit that the petitioners were found unfit before the training, therefore, Section 20(2) of the Act of 2016 would not apply. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. The petitioners were terminated from service by order dated 22.05.2018 as both the petitioners were found unfit. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred appeal before the appellate authority who ought to have examine the case of the petitioners on merits. The appellate authority mainly referred the petitioners to review medical board and upon receipt of the test report, the appellate authority proceeded to dismiss the appeals finding that the petitioners were unfit due to hypermetropia without examining the appeal on merits, which is not in accordance with law. The appellant authority ought to have examined the appeals on merits in addition to calling for the medical report from review medical examination, if any and even the applicability of Section 20(2) of the Act of 2016 ought to have examined, as it is the case of the petitioners that they have suffered the medical disability of hypermetropia during the training period, whereas it is the case of 5 CRPF that they were suffering from hypermetropia before the training. 7. In that view of the matter, the order of the appellate authority dated 28.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider and examine the appeals on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents authority shall be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioners, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge