Disability Protection and Voluntary Retirement: Analysis of Delhi High Court Decision in Tilak Raj Singh Vs Union of India & Ors

Introduction

The Delhi High Court in Tilak Raj Singh Vs Union of India & Ors has clarified an important question: Can an employee with a disability, who has been granted voluntary retirement, later claim reinstatement by invoking disability protection laws such as Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995?

This judgment becomes significant for government departments, PSUs, and other establishments covered under the PWD framework, particularly in relation to personnel decisions involving specially abled employees. The Court drew a clear line between protection from adverse action by the employer and consequences flowing from an employee’s own voluntary decision to retire.

This article provides a structured, plain-language analysis of the decision, the arguments raised, the interpretation of Section 47 of the PWD Act, and the implications for assessees and government employers.

Factual Background

Appointment and Posting

  • The Petitioner, Tilak Raj Singh, is a specially abled person.
  • He was appointed in the Income Tax Department under the Physically Handicap (PH) quota.
  • After appointment, he was posted in an office where the workplace was situated on the second floor of the building.

Due to his physical condition, the Petitioner requested that he be shifted to an office on the ground floor. This administrative request, however, could not be accommodated by the Department.

Multiple Requests for Voluntary Retirement

The Petitioner thereafter chose to seek voluntary retirement from government service:

  1. First application for voluntary retirement:

    • Date: 28.08.2013
    • Status: Not accepted by the Department.

  2. Second application for voluntary retirement:

    • Date: 24.04.2014
    • Status: Again, not accepted by the Department.

  3. Third application for voluntary retirement:

    • Date: 11.11.2014
    • This time, the request was accepted.
    • The Petitioner was allowed to retire from Government service with effect from 11.11.2014 (forenoon).
    • The retirement was granted under FR 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (referred to in the order as Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972).

At this stage, the separation from service was entirely on the basis of voluntary retirement initiated by the Petitioner himself, after serving for nearly 21 years in the Department.

Approach to CAT After Nearly Nine Years

In 2023, almost nine years after his voluntary retirement took effect, the Petitioner filed an Original Application (O.A. No.4012/2023) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench.

In this O.A., he sought:

  • Reinstatement into service, and
  • Other consequential reliefs.

The CAT, after considering the material, dismissed the Original Application, noting that:

The Petitioner himself had voluntarily sought retirement after serving the Department for nearly 21 years.

Subsequently, the Petitioner moved a Review Application (R.A. No.170/2025) before CAT, which was also dismissed.

These two orders of CAT dated 26.09.2025 (in the O.A.) and 06.11.2025 (in the Review Application) were then challenged before the Delhi High Court through the present writ petition.

Challenge Before the Delhi High Court

Impugned Orders Under Challenge

The Petitioner assailed the following before the High Court:

  • Order dated 26.09.2025 passed by CAT in O.A. No.4012/2023; and
  • Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by CAT in R.A. No.170/2025.

These are collectively referred to as the Impugned Orders.

The Petitioner’s counsel advanced the following key contentions before the Delhi High Court:

1.