Seniority isn’t portable – Bombay High Court rules disabled employees can’t leapfrog colleagues after cadre shift

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of service protections for employees with disabilities, the Bombay High Court, in Rameshwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[1], on 26 March 2026, has held that an employee shifted to a different cadre under the mandate of the Disabilities Act cannot claim seniority based on past service in their previous post. Delivering the judgment, Justice M.W. Chandwani emphasized that while the statute protects continuity of pay and service benefits, it does not permit the disturbance of the existing seniority of employees already working in the cadre to which the disabled employee is shifted.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a lab technician in 2002 but suffered low vision in 2010. Pursuant to court directions, he was absorbed in 2016 into a different cadre as an extension officer (panchayat) with the same pay scale and service benefits. The conflict arose when a seniority list for promotion was published, placing the petitioner at the bottom. The petitioner contended that under Section 47 of the disabilities Act, his earlier service as a lab technician (from 2002 to 2016) ought to have been considered for determining his seniority and eligibility for promotion in the new cadre.

The court examined the scheme of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act and clarified that it operates in two distinct parts i.e., protecting an employee from discharge or reduction in rank, and ensuring promotion is not denied solely due to disability.  The court held that while the provision ensures continuity of employment and pay, it does not confer a right to claim seniority in a different cadre based on past service. The court draw a distinction between ‘reduction in rank’ (affecting status and pay, which is prohibited) and ‘reduction in seniority’ (pertaining to inter se placement within a cadre). The court ruled that preservation of service benefits does not imply an automatic carry-forward of seniority. The court noted that granting such seniority would adversely affect employees already in the cadre, leading to discrimination and disruption of settled positions. The legislative intent is to protect the disabled employee without prejudicing the rights of others.

The ruling reinforces the principle that ‘service benefits’ under the Act refer to financial and retirement security rather than a portable seniority status. By dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court has clarified that while a disabled employee is entitled to a ‘safety net’ of employment and pay, their placement in a new cadre remains subject to the established seniority of that specific cadre.

[1] (Writ Petition No. 6535 of 2024)