Court: Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Case Nos.: CCPD/13498/1024/2022 and CCPD/16130/1022/25
Complainant: Shri Ravinder Jadhav
Respondents: Canara Bank
Date of Order: 23 April 2026
Summary: Accessibility Is Not a Workplace Perk—It Is a Constitutional Requirement
In a significant order reinforcing the rights of employees with disabilities, the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) has directed Canara Bank to transfer a visually impaired employee to an accessible branch, reimburse salary and allowances withheld during the period he was unable to join an inaccessible posting, and undertake a formal accessibility audit of its facilities through auditors empanelled by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.
The order, passed by Chief Commissioner Shri S. Govindaraj, reiterates that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are indispensable components of the constitutional guarantee of equality in public employment and cannot be treated as discretionary concessions.
Background: From Systemic Accessibility Concerns to an Individual Employment Dispute
The proceedings arose out of two connected complaints filed by Shri Ravinder Jadhav, a person with 71% benchmark disability employed with Canara Bank. In the first complaint, he raised several issues affecting employees with disabilities, including inaccessible HRMS systems, delays in providing JAWS screen-reading software, irregularities in payment of Special Conveyance Allowance, absence of effective grievance redress mechanisms, and accessibility concerns within the Bank's infrastructure.
During the proceedings, the CCPD repeatedly emphasised the need for accessible digital systems, assistive technology, automated allowance payments, grievance redressal mechanisms and an Equal Opportunity Policy. The Bank informed the Court that it had revised its allowance policy, initiated procurement of JAWS software and designated a Grievance Redressal Officer. However, the matter did not end there.
In 2025, Shri Jadhav approached the CCPD again after being transferred from Canara Bank's Faridabad Sector-9 Branch to the Sanjay Colony Branch. He contended that the new branch was inaccessible and unsafe for a visually impaired employee because access required negotiating a hazardous route involving an open drain and a narrow crossing. He further alleged that when he could not safely report to the branch, his salary and allowances were stopped.
The Bank defended the transfer as a routine administrative rotation after completion of tenure and argued that the branch was accessible and well connected. It also justified withholding salary on the ground that the employee had not reported for duty.
Photographic Evidence Revealed Serious Accessibility Hazards
A critical aspect of the case was the photographic evidence submitted by the complainant.
After examining the photographs, the CCPD recorded that the entrance route to the branch was not merely inconvenient but posed a serious safety risk for a person with visual impairment. The Court noted that the route involved an open drainage canal covered by an uneven and precarious grate, creating a hazardous and inconsistent walking surface. It observed that such conditions could endanger even non-disabled persons and constituted a structural barrier for a visually impaired employee.
The Court consequently concluded that the branch failed to provide a barrier-free environment and that the employee's inability to access the workplace was directly attributable to the inaccessible conditions.
Strong Reliance on Accessibility Jurisprudence
The order is notable for drawing upon recent constitutional developments in accessibility law.
The CCPD referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, where accessibility was recognised as an integral component of the rights to dignity, life and freedom of movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The order also highlighted the Supreme Court's distinction between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, explaining that accessibility addresses systemic barriers while reasonable accommodation addresses individual needs.
The Court further relied upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, where the Supreme Court recognised accessibility and connectivity as essential facets of the right to life.
Importantly, the CCPD also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, which recognised the right to unobstructed and accessible pathways as a fundamental right and mandated compliance with accessibility standards for pedestrian infrastructure.
Equality in Employment Includes Accessible Workplaces
One of the most significant observations in the order concerns the relationship between accessibility and equal opportunity in employment.
The CCPD observed that Article 16(1) guarantees equal opportunity in public employment and that this guarantee must be meaningful for persons with disabilities. The Court emphasised that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not ancillary benefits but structural prerequisites for equality. Where an employer fails to remove barriers, the opportunity offered to an employee with disability becomes illusory rather than real.
The order makes an important conceptual shift by recognising that a workplace cannot be viewed merely as the office premises. Instead, the workplace must be understood as an integrated environment that includes safe and accessible access to the workplace itself.
Salary Cannot Be Withheld When Inaccessibility Prevents Attendance
The CCPD found that withholding salary and allowances from the complainant during the period he was unable to access the branch was punitive and amounted to a denial of livelihood. Since the inability to attend work arose directly from inaccessible conditions, the consequences could not be visited upon the employee.
Accordingly, the Court advised the Bank to:
- Post the complainant to an accessible branch as close to his native place as possible, subject to administrative constraints; and
- Reimburse all salary and allowances withheld during the period he could not access the branch.
Accessibility Audit Ordered
Going beyond the individual grievance, the CCPD recommended that Canara Bank undertake a formal accessibility audit through auditors empanelled by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.
The audit is to cover not only the branch premises but also the route used for accessing the workplace. The Bank has been directed to prepare an Action Taken Report and submit compliance within ninety days. The order warns that failure to comply may invite proceedings under Sections 77, 89 and 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Why This Order Matters
This order is important because it expands the understanding of workplace accessibility beyond ramps, lifts and office interiors. It recognises that an employee cannot meaningfully exercise the right to work if the path leading to the workplace itself is unsafe or inaccessible.
The CCPD's reasoning aligns closely with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that views accessibility as a fundamental right rather than a welfare measure. It also reinforces a principle that disability rights advocates have long emphasised: equal opportunity in employment requires more than merely appointing persons with disabilities. Employers must ensure that employees can safely reach, enter, navigate and perform their work with dignity and independence.
For banks, public sector undertakings and government establishments across India, the message is clear. Accessibility audits cannot remain limited to buildings. They must extend to digital systems, assistive technologies, administrative policies, grievance mechanisms and the broader ecosystem through which employees with disabilities access their workplace.
The order is another reminder that accessibility is not a matter of charity or convenience. It is a legal obligation flowing directly from the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the evolving jurisprudence of equality and dignity.
While the Bank was a respondent in this case we also find that municipal bodies, ULBs also continue to ignore accessibility compliance on streets, roads and allow encroachments or leave drains open without a raised boundary or protection, they also issue permission to build structures and issue occupancy certificate with no mechanism to ensure accessibility. The accessibility having been declared a fundamental right, its time we also held the municipal agencies accountable for their lethargy and lack of action.