Synopsis

A large batch of government employees (predominantly teachers in Zilla Parishads) who had been enjoying benefits reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) – including appointment under disability quota, favourable transfers, and other service benefits – challenged the State Government’s initiation of a mass re‑verification and medical re‑assessment of their disability certificates and UDID cards. The State had issued Government Resolutions (GRs) mandating verification after receiving numerous complaints about bogus and exaggerated disability certificates, particularly for “hearing impairment” and “locomotor disability”. The Bombay High Court upheld the State’s power to conduct such re‑verification as a one‑time measure, finding that large‑scale fraud had been detected (e.g., many employees found to have 0% disability on re‑examination). The court quashed individual orders of suspension, show‑cause notices, and disciplinary actions taken during the process, but laid down a detailed categorisation of employees based on the outcome of re‑assessment and prescribed proportionate actions, ranging from no action (superannuated employees) to show‑cause notices and, in cases of proven fraud, departmental enquiry leading to possible compulsory retirement. The court emphasised that employment obtained through fraudulent disability certificates is void ab initio and constitutes moral turpitude.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay J. Mantri (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 6th May, 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 4325 of 2026 and connected matters (unreported)

Core Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Sections 2(r), 2(s), 56, 57, 59, 91; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024; Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964; Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay

Writ petition no. 4325 of 2026 and connected matters (batched petitions)

Samadhan kalu shewale and ors. (petitioners) vs. The state of maharashtra and ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice ravindra v. ghuge and hon’ble mr. justice abhay j. mantri

Reserved on: 9th april, 2026; pronounced on: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016 – section 2(r) (person with benchmark disability – not less than 40% specified disability), section 2(s) (person with disability – long‑term impairment hindering effective participation), section 34 (reservation for benchmark disabled in government establishments), section 56 (central government to notify guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities), section 57 (designation of certifying authorities), section 59 (appeal against decision of certifying authority), section 91 (punishment for fraudulently availing benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities – imprisonment up to 2 years or fine up to ₹1 lakh or both)

Rights of persons with disabilities rules, 2017 – rule 18 (colour bands for disability categories), rules 17-20 (procedure for certification)

Maharashtra state rights of persons with disabilities rules, 2024 – rule 8 (reference of suspicious cases for re‑assessment)

Maharashtra zilla parishad district service (discipline and appeal) rules, 1964 – procedure for disciplinary action

Maharashtra zilla parishad district service (conduct) rules, 1967 – rule 3 (absolute integrity and devotion to duty)

Constitution of india, 1950 – articles 14 (right to equality – non‑arbitrariness), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 21 (right to life and livelihood), 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the State Government, in exercise of its power as an employer, can direct a mass re‑verification and medical re‑assessment of disability certificates and UDID cards of government employees who have been enjoying benefits reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, when t

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.