Bombay HC directs BMC to consider use of technology (elevators etc) for all skywalks to make them friendly to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. [Judgemnet included]

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kulkarni and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R N Laddha. 

Case No. : WP/771/2023 [Original]

Case Title: K.P. Purushothamna Nair of Mumbai VS.  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Date of Judgement: 24 April 2023

Subject: Safe and Acessible Pavements / Pedestrian Facilities, Accessibility of Skywalk to persons with disabilities and senior citizens. 

Brief:

On a petition by an HC staff-turned-lawyer K P P Nair, a Bandra resident, the BMC has been directed by the Bombay HC to install mechanical walkways and elevators at both ends of skywalks to help the senior citizens and persons with disabilities in commuting every day. It also ordered that in future, in all skywalks, the BMC must consider the use of technology to make these more sturdy and beneficial for all commuters.

The petiton raised important questions of accesssibilty of pedestrian facilities for the senior citizens and persosn with disabilities.  He narrated that everyday thousands of persons commute between Bandra Railway Station, on Bandra East side towards MHADA End. This segment faces a junction which has a flow of heavy traffic as pedestrians are required to also cross the Western Express Highway. He has submitted that there is only one pavement which is required to be used by these commuters which gets unimaginably crowded, thereby creating a routine situation of accidents taking place and that such a chaotic situation is totally against the interest of the commuters. 

The HC had on an earlier hearing dated 20 March 2023 observed that commuter safety is paramount and any mishap occurring due to non-availability of a safe footpath or walkway would amount to a breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the citizens. The bench noted the Central and Western railways as also the Metro have provided such mechanisms at several railway stations, including escalators. Asking the BMC to consider it too, the bench said, “Benefits of modern technology need to be made available to the commuters, to maketheir commuting life in Mumbai more easier and comfortable. ” 

“We are sure that such aspects as highlighted by us would be considered and borne in mind by the MCGM in consultation with all other authorities, so that not only the proposed skywalk but also all existing skywalks in the city are made ideal, for their best possible utility, so as to achieve the purpose for which they are constructed,” 

The steps being taken by the MCGM and more particularly, that within a period of 15 months from the date of award of the contract, the entire work of restoration of the sky-walk in question would be completed, is a welcome measure being taken by the MCGM. We accordingly dispose of this petition accepting the statements as made in the reply affidavit and permitting the MCGM to progress the work with all expediency, expresed the court in its order disposign off the petition. 

Read the judgement:

Continuous Service Means All Purposes: Delhi High Court Enforces Batch Parity for IFS Officer

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5367/2014 (CM APPL. 7922/2023 & CM APPL. 8021/2023)

Case Title: Shweta Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2023

Citation: 2023:DHC:3330-DB

Precedent Mandate: Final Order and Judgment dated July 29, 2016

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner successfully contested her eligibility for allocation and appointment to the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) under the Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2012 through a landmark writ petition decided by the Delhi High Court on July 29, 2016. The initial judgment issued a mandamus directing the Union of India to appoint her to the IFS, stipulating that while she would not be entitled to retroactively claim backwages, her entire backdated service span would be recognized. Crucially, the Court decreed that the entire period commencing from the date she would have been ordinarily appointed would be treated as part of her continuous service for all purposes, including retiral benefits and the fixation of seniority, effectively positioning her as an officer of the IFS 2013 Batch.

The petitioner approached the High Court via miscellaneous applications in 2023 because the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) created administrative hurdles in implementing her service benefits. Despite her judicially fixed seniority, the MEA refused to grant her the Senior Scale Grade (w.e.f. July 1, 2017) and the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) along with the corresponding rank of Deputy Secretary (w.e.f. January 1, 2022) at par with her 2013 batchmates.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Actual Service Alibi: The respondent ministry defended its denial by raising a technical objection, arguing that the petitioner had not completed the physical, actual service experience thresholds required for promotional increments—specifically, 4 years of physical service for the Senior Scale and 9 years for the JAG layout.

• The Regulatory Omission: The senior counsel for the petitioner dismantled this defence by demonstrating that the formal Service Rules contained no such actual or physical presence pre-condition to block scale advancements once an officer's continuous service and confirmation were established.
• The Administrative Contradiction: The petitioner exposed a glaring contradiction in the MEA's operational logic. The ministry had already granted her the rank of First Secretary alongside her 2013 batchmates effective July 3, 2020, an advancement which was similarly handled without any physical service pre-condition barriers. The MEA's sudden insistence on a literal physical service calculation to deny her subsequent scales directly conflicted with its prior administrative actions and the clear mandates of the court.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an executive ministry can interpret "continuous service" as requiring physical presence to deny statutory pay scales and promotional upgrades when a judicial decree has explicitly directed that the retroactive period be counted for all purposes.
2. Whether the relevant Service Rules impose an actual physical deployment barrier to exclude a litigation-vindicated officer from batch-parity advancements.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the MEA's resistance, characterising it as an entirely untenable and arbitrary stance:

• Judicial Directives Undiluted: The Court observed that the last sentence of the 2016 judgment was absolute and free from ambiguity. The judicial mandate explicitly commanded that her backdated timeline must be integrated as continuous service for all purposes, leaving no room for the executive to strip away scale benefits through retroactive technicalities.
• No Rule-Based Physical Barriers: Upon evaluating the structural criteria of the promotion tables, the Bench verified that there was no active rule-based requirement enforcing actual physical deployment over judicially established seniority matching.
• Protection Against Discrimination: The Court ruled that because her 2013 batchmates received these grades seamlessly, singling out the petitioner based on parameters already resolved by the court amounted to an unlawful denial of benefits.

Directions Issued

1. Finding the department's actions to be in direct violation of the original judicial decree, the High Court issued the following clear directions:
2. The respondents are directed to properly implement the final judgment and grant the petitioner the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) along with the rank of Deputy Secretary at par with the 2013 batch w.e.f. January 1, 2022.
3. The ministry must formally award her the Senior Scale Grade at par with her batchmates w.e.f. July 1, 2017.
4. The appropriate administrative orders executing these scale upgrades must be finalized and issued by the respondents within a strict timeline of four weeks.
5. Career-Long Protection Order: To prevent future institutional friction, the Bench explicitly ordered that the arguments raised by the MEA in this round shall neither be treated as a consequence nor act as an impediment for the rest of her career or future promotions.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement in Shweta Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.