The State possesses the inherent authority to conduct medical re-verification of disability certificates to prevent fraudulent availing of service benefits.

The petitioners are Government and Zilla Parishad (ZP) employees across Maharashtra who either entered service under the disability quota or claimed disability benefits post-employment.

In June and October 2025, the State issued Government Resolutions (GRs) making the Unique Disability ID (UDID) card mandatory and ordering a systematic re-verification/medical re-examination of all employees claiming disability benefits due to a surge in complaints regarding bogus certificates.

Petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that the State lacked the jurisdiction to re-assess certified disabilities after decades and that such actions violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Procedurally, multiple High Court benches had granted conflicting interim orders, leading to the clubbing of cases.

During the pendency, re-examinations revealed numerous instances of 0% or significantly reduced disability among employees.

The court primarily applied Section 2(r) and 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, defining benchmark disabilities and persons with disabilities.

Section 56 regarding Central Government assessment guidelines and Section 91, which provides criminal penalties for fraudulently availing benchmark disability benefits.

Rule 8 of the Maharashtra State RPwD Rules, 2024, which empowers authorities to refer "suspicious" cases for re-assessment.

State of U.P. v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, affirming the State's right to order re-verification in cases of large-scale fraud.

Chairman and MD, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, establishing that benefits obtained via fraud are void ab initio.

The Court reasoned that the statutory rights of genuine PwDs are subverted when fraudulent claimants occupy reserved posts.

It held that while the UDID card is a standard identification, it does not grant immunity from verification if the underlying medical facts are suspicious or exaggerated.

Applying Ravindra Kumar Sharma, the court found that mere document verification is insufficient to detect fraud in "invisible" disabilities like hearing impairment, necessitating medical re-examination.

The court characterized the act of using bogus certificates to usurp public employment as "moral turpitude," which justifies dispensing with conventional leniency in service law.

It concluded that the State's policy was a uniform, non-arbitrary measure to protect the integrity of the reservation system, provided re-examinations are conducted by properly constituted Medical Boards rather than individual doctors.

The Court partly allowed the petitions by regulating the State's action as a "one-time measure"; superannuated employees are exempt from re-verification; employees with bogus certificates (0-10% disability) shall face departmental inquiries and potential compulsory retirement; those between 11-40% will lose PwD service benefits but retain employment; existing suspension and FIR orders were quashed subject to cooperation with fresh re-examinations within 120 days.