Bombay High Court regulates Maharashtra's pan-State re-verification of disability certificates of Zilla Parishad employees
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has partly allowed about 100 writ petitions filed by Zilla Parishad employees, quashing suspension orders, FIR proposals and salary-stoppage actions, while permitting the State's State-wide medical re-verification of disability certificates to proceed as a strictly regulated one-time measure.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has partly allowed roughly 100 writ petitions filed by Maharashtra Zilla Parishad employees challenging the State's pan-Maharashtra exercise of medically re-verifying their disability certificates. The bench quashed all suspension orders, salary stoppages, FIR proposals, Shalarth ID cancellations, transfers and disciplinary moves issued during the exercise, but allowed the re-verification itself to continue as a regulated one-time measure under a special Medical Board.
Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri delivered the judgment on 6 May 2026, after reserving orders on 9 April. The judgment runs to 147 pages and gathers writ petitions filed from 2023 through early 2026 by teachers, Shikshan Sevaks and other staff of Zilla Parishads in districts ranging from Beed and Nanded to Pune, Nashik, Jalgaon, Kolhapur and Yavatmal. An annexure to the judgment records that 11,759 Zilla Parishad employees, 552 employees in District and Divisional Commissioner offices, and 1,616 in Municipal Corporations were brought into the exercise; 375 had already been found to hold certificates below 40 per cent or no valid certificate at all.
The trigger was two Government Resolutions, dated 16 June 2025 and 9 October 2025, that directed re-verification of the disability status of every Persons with Disability (PwD) employee in State instrumentalities, following allegations of widespread bogus certificates and UDID cards. Implementing communications, show-cause notices and suspension orders followed across districts. Employees with 15 to 23 years of unbroken service — many holding certificates from duly constituted Medical Boards in State, Central or UDID format — suddenly found themselves suspended or charge-sheeted, often without a prior show-cause notice.
What the Act actually says
The bench began with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules. Justice Ghuge, writing for the bench, walked through Chapter X of the Act (Sections 56 to 59 on certification of specified disabilities), Section 102 on continuity of action taken under the 1995 Act, and Rules 17 to 20 of the 2017 Rules. The structure he extracted is straightforward: a notified medical authority certifies disability; a person aggrieved may appeal to the appellate authority under Section 59; certificates issued under the 1995 Act continue to be valid for the period specified under Rule 20.
On this scheme the bench made two findings that drive the rest of the judgment. The first is that the “benchmark disability” threshold of 40 per cent applies only at the recruitment stage, when a candidate seeks employment against PwD reservation under Section 34. For an employee already in service who has acquired disability during service, the only statutory requirement is a valid certificate from the notified authority. Improvement or fluctuation in percentage thereafter does not, by itself, justify punitive action.
The second finding is that neither the Act nor the Rules vest the employer or the State Government with a power of review or revision over a certificate. If the State suspects a certificate, the route is Section 59 and an appeal to the appellate authority. None of the Zilla Parishads, the bench noted, had filed any such appeal.
Executive resolutions cannot replace statute
Maharashtra had defended its exercise primarily on the strength of executive instruments — the Government Resolutions of 14 January 2011, 18 June 2024, 16 June 2025 and 9 October 2025, and circulars issued by the Persons with Disabilities Welfare Department. The bench was unmoved. The RPwD Act is a Central legislation enacted to give effect to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a State Government cannot supplant its provisions by Government Resolutions or executive guidelines. The State, the Court held, has no power to lay down guidelines for assessing the extent of disability outside the framework of Section 56 read with the 2017 Rules and the Maharashtra Rules, 2024.
On natural justice, the bench was equally pointed. Several employees, particularly in Beed and Jalgaon districts, had been suspended without any show-cause notice, on the bare ground that they did not yet hold a UDID card. Ex parte observations by Education Officers — who, in many cases, were neither the appointing nor the disciplinary authority for the employee — were held to be in breach of Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the 2017 Rules and of the principles of natural justice. The bench reminded the State that the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
Why the exercise was still allowed to continue
Having dismantled the State's legal scaffolding, the bench then made a decision that defines the judgment: it allowed the re-verification exercise to continue, but only as a one-time measure and only on terms. Two reasons drove that choice. First, the exercise had already swept through most of the State, with thousands of employees re-assessed. Second, the bench accepted that the danger of “black sheep” manipulating certificates and UDID cards to secure or retain reservation benefits is real.
For doctrinal cover, the Court drew on observations of the Supreme Court and a Rajasthan High Court order recognising that, in “peculiar, specific and warranting circumstances”, the State may direct medical re-assessment. The bench treated the present situation — State-wide allegations of forged certificates, combined with administrative data showing 375 confirmed problem cases and many more incomplete reports — as falling within that narrow category. But it built a tight cage around the exercise.
Re-assessment must be done by a special Medical Board, not by a Civil Surgeon or a team of doctors at the local level. Where that rule was already breached, the test results are to be discarded and the employee referred afresh. The whole exercise must be completed in 120 days. And critically, action under Section 91 of the Act (which makes furnishing false information an offence) is not approved for this one-time exercise; in future cases, the bench held, Section 91 will apply with full force.
Order
The bench quashed every suspension order, salary stoppage, FIR proposal, Shalarth ID cancellation, transfer and disciplinary move issued during the re-verification, subject to a structured set of directions in Paragraph 97. Employees who have already superannuated or taken voluntary retirement as on the date of the judgment are placed outside the exercise entirely and will get their retirement dues if no other impediment exists. Where re-assessment proves a certificate to be bogus or UDID card forged, the employer must issue a 15-day show-cause notice, follow with a charge sheet and departmental enquiry if the reply is unsatisfactory, and may order compulsory retirement on proof of charges. Where the disability falls between 11 per cent and 39 per cent, the employee loses PwD-linked service benefits; between 0 and 10 per cent, the show-cause and compulsory retirement route applies. Refusal to undergo examination first triggers a 21-day second chance; persistent refusal leads to suspension with a 50 per cent suspension allowance, and a 50 per cent cap on retirement dues if the refusal continues till superannuation. An employee facing categories (b) to (f) action may avoid disciplinary proceedings by filing an apology affidavit and seeking voluntary retirement; if eligible for pension, acceptance or a reasoned rejection must follow within 15 days, failing which the application is deemed accepted. Doctors found to have issued bogus certificates face departmental action if in service and an FIR if superannuated. All future PwD recruitments and in-service claims will be processed strictly under the RPwD Act, the 2017 Rules and the Maharashtra Rules, 2024, with only Swavlamban-portal UDID cards treated as valid. Pending interim applications stand disposed of.