Delhi High Court Directs SBI To Reconsider Promotion Policy for Visually Impaired Officers, Seek Practical Accommodation Measures
The Bench directed to consider feasible measures to ensure equal opportunities in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to examine concerns raised by visually impaired officers regarding promotional barriers in the bank's senior management cadre and consider feasible measures to ensure equal opportunities in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by the Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association, comprising of over 600 members with visual disabilities employed in various banks across India, challenging SBI's promotion policy for advancement from Middle Management Grade Scale (MMGS)-III to Senior Management Grade Scale (SMGS)-IV and V.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed, “…there can be no cavil that persons with disabilities are entitled to live and work with equal dignity, and that discrimination against them, including in matters of promotion, is impermissible… any provision that creates an impediment to the promotion of visually impaired officers would run contrary to the provisions of the RPwD Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the rights and treatment of persons with visual disabilities.”.
Noting Section 20(3) RPwD Act, the Bench further observed, “It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that officers of Respondent No. 1 with visual disabilities are treated equally and are provided with such support and facilities as may be necessary to offset the impact of their disability…”.
Advocate Rahul Bajaj appeared for the petitioner and Nishant Gautam, CGSC appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the association contended that SBI's promotion framework requires officers to serve as Branch Managers or in assignments relating to credit, trade finance, or foreign exchange before becoming eligible for higher promotions.
According to the petitioners, such roles involve visual verification of documents, physical inspections, monitoring CCTV footage, verification of customer signatures, and other tasks that cannot presently be performed independently by blind officers due to the absence of adequate assistive technology and accessible systems.
The petitioners argued that the requirement effectively excludes visually impaired officers from promotional avenues, resulting in career stagnation and indirect discrimination. They also relied upon a 2022 recommendation of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), which had suggested modifications to the promotion policy and alternative evaluation criteria for visually impaired employees.
SBI opposed the plea, contending that the policy is uniformly applicable to all officers and does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The bank submitted that several visually impaired officers are already performing mandatory assignments and have been considered for promotion. It further argued that senior management positions require operational exposure and oversight capabilities that justify the existing eligibility criteria.
Now, the Court reiterated that persons with disabilities are entitled to equal treatment and that Section 20(3) of the RPwD Act expressly provides that no promotion shall be denied merely on the ground of disability. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph 2021 SCC OnLine SC 435 and Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services 2025 INSC 300, the Court observed that seemingly neutral criteria may nevertheless operate in an indirectly discriminatory manner against persons with disabilities.
However, instead of striking down the policy, the Court directed the association to submit a detailed representation identifying affected SBI officers, practical difficulties faced by them, and specific accommodation measures adopted by other public sector banks. SBI's Board of Directors has been directed to consider the representation, grant a hearing to the association, and examine the suggested measures within twelve weeks thereafter.
“…we deem it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to submit a detailed Representation to Respondent No. 1, identifying the officers of Respondent No. 1 who are stated to be adversely affected by the Impugned Policy and setting out concrete suggestions and measures that may enable such officers to comply with the Impugned Requirements. Such Representation shall also set out the practices adopted by other Public Sector Banks in relation to similarly situated officers and the methodology followed by those banks for considering such officers for promotion…”.
“…The Representation shall further indicate any alternative pathway or mechanism by which the mandatory requirements under the Impugned Policy may be met, so as to obviate stagnation and secure for visually impaired officers an equal opportunity to compete with other officers of Respondent No. 1 on a level playing field”, the Bench observed.
The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions.
Cause Title: Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4838-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Rahul Bajaj and Sarah, Advocates.
Respondents: Santosh Rout, S.C., Divyam Nandrajog, Dhruv Kaushik, Nishant Gautam, CGSC, Kavya Shukla, Vineet Negi, Naman Sharma and Theresa Shiji, Advocates.