Madras HC | WP No. 23154 of 2015 | D Ramkumar Vs. Pondicherry Society for Higher Education and Others | 08 Aug 2022

 Court: High Court of Madras

Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

Case No. & Title: W.P.No.23154 of 2015, D Ramkumar Vs. Pondicherry Society for Higher Education and Others.

Date of Judgement: 08 Aug 2022

------

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, a 100% blind Associate Professor/HOD of English was transferred to another college citing that it was women college and all male teachers need to be shifted to other colleges, while many male teacherss continued to work and only the petitioner was transferred with malafile objectives. This was challenged by the petititioner. Single bench rejected his case but the in the appeal before the  Division Bench of this Court, the bench clearly held that the order of transfer was discriminatory and arbitrary, which has to be regarded as illegal. And thus the petitioner returned to his colleges. The college however, refused to pay salary and other monetary benefits for the period and rejected on the ground of "no work no pay" and that the Bench had specifically not directed to pay the wages.

The petitioner again had to take up the matter. The bench held, the claim for the monetary benefits including the salary after the transfer order, cannot be rejected on the ground of 'no work, no pay.  The court further held that  when the order of transfer of the petitioner was set aside by this Court, the consequential service and monetary benefits arising therefrom between 26.11.2013 and 29.06.2014 would automatically become a part of such an order and no specific directions need be given for payment of such benefits. If that be so, the petitioner herein need not specifically plead for the relief of consequential service and monetary benefits, in the earlier round of litigations. Incidentally, since the Hon'ble Division Bench had not denied these benefits to the petitioner, it ought to be held that he would be entitled for all these benefits. 

The court passed direction to the first respondent to forthwith regularise the period between 25.11.2013 and 29.06.2014, as duty period for all purposes and extend all the service and monetary benefits arising thereto, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Read the judgement embeddded below:

Madras HC | PIL titled Rajiv Rajan Vs. The MTC(C)L & Ors on implementation of PWD Act 1995

Bench:  M.M.SUNDRESH, J. and R.HEMALATHA,J.

Case No. WP No. 38224 of 2005

Case Title: Rajiv Rajan  Vs Chairman and Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corpn (Chennai) Ltd. and 3 others.

Sub: PIL for Accessible and Disabled friendly  Public Infratructure, Railways Stations, Buses, Bus Shelters, Publlic Toilets, Metro Rail etc.  

-----------------

Rajiv Rajan                                                         .. Petitioner 

vs 

1.The Chairman and Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., An Undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 

2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003 

3.The State Co-ordination Committee, Rep. By Chairperson Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 

4.The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, 15/1, Model School Road Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006                                                 .. Respondents

Brief:

This Writ petition was filed by our colleague Mr. Rajiv Rajan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents more particularly respondents 1 and 2 to implement “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” in its spirit by providing user friendly transport, access and barrier free environment in the public places giving access to the usage of transport system.

The court passed comprehensive order on 02.03.2006 and thereafter the matter has been kept live for follow ups. 

On 10-9-2014, the bench of  Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, The Chief Justice and Mr. Justie M. Sathyanarayanan disposed off the matter in terms of order already passed on 2.3.2006. However, the bench directed the Governemnt to file compliance report every month setting out what action they have taken under Sections 44 to 46 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, separately in that 3 month to comply with the directions. The matter was thus to be listed every month for compliance.

On 06.04 2016 the Learned Amicus suggested that for the time being, the issue which we are required to address is the lack of improvement by Metro Transport Corporation (MTC) and State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) in introducing buses which are disabled friendly. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the MTC and SETC submited that though initially there was some restraint in respect of procuring buses, it had been observed that there may be some buses procured dedicated for the use of persons with special needs, but the passengers found travelling in such buses were few. 

The bench however was of the view that any steps to be taken for the benefit of the persons with special needs has to be inclusive in character. The idea cannot be to have separate buses, but buses which are used daily by passengers meeting the requirement of Persons with special needs. It is not possible to predetermine the route to be travelled, the destination to be reached etc., by introducing buses only for certain routes which are disabled friendly. The objective has to be, over a period of time, to make sure all the buses in use meet the requirement of people with special needs. This can only happen if procurement of such buses which are meant to cater to the people with special needs, as otherwise what has happened would continue to happen – introducing of new buses in the fleets which still do not meet the requirement of the people with special needs. 

The court thus directed that any new buses to be introduced in the fleets must meet the requirement of the people with special needs and as per the norms in consultation with the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. In determining whether a bus is disabled friendly, inter alia, it has to be ensured that there is easy access for boarding and alighting.

On 28.06.2016, The court expressed, "the necessity of new buses meeting the requirement of persons with special needs as per norm and consultation with the Commission for Persons with Disabilities cannot be doubted. However, what is sought to be projected is that in some of the routes, a bus shelter may not be conducive to the ingress and egress for such buses. If that be the position, the first respondent, can always address the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Chennai/2nd respondent which would be mandated to make the necessary adjustments. It has also been stated that a policy decision would have to be taken by the Government, as the first respondent has no funds even to buy buses. In this behalf, all that we can say is that at some stage, the State Government would have to take a call as to how the first respondent is to be managed financially, if it wants the Corporation to continue. There can be buses already on the way out as per norms and we are conscious of the fact that it may be difficult to convert the existing buses and therefore our direction is for buses procured in future to comply with the requirements, so that over a period of time, all buses will become compliant.

on 05.07.2022, the bench directed that a copy of the compliance reports filed in W.P.No. 923 of 2007 shall be kept in this writ petition for reference. And on next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.2022, the Bench of Chief Justice and Justice N. Mala, ordered the matter to be closed based on compliance reports being filed by the Govt. 

Madrash HC: M. Gnanasambandam Vs. Govt. of India | WP No. 923 of 2007 | 05 July 2022

Court:                     Madras High Court

Bench:                    Mr.Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chief Justice and Mrs. Justice N. Mala. 

Case No.                WP No. 923 of 2007

Case Title:             M. Gnanasambandam  Vs. Union of India 

Date of Order:       05 July 2022

This Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take the following measures to facilitate the effective implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: 

I. To frame and notify comprehensive Rules immediately for according recognition to various types of Schemes (Educational Institutions for the Disabled) as provided under Chapter V Education under the PWD Act. 

II. To distribute scholarships to all school going children with disabilities in time. 

III. To direct the Central and State Governments to issue notifications to make schemes to provide Aids and Appliances to persons with Disabilities. 

IV. To direct the respondents to enquire into in detail from the year 2002 onwards about the alleged violations in the distributions of Aids and Appliances under ADIP Scheme as well as Inclusive Education Programme under Sarva Shiksha Abiyan and submit a Report before this Hon'ble Court. 

V. To direct the respondents to initiate necessary punitive action against those responsible for such kinds of nefarious acts and take suitable measures to prevent such malpractices in future. 

VI. To direct the respondents to make schemes providing for medical benefits, expenses and treatment for persons with Disabilities.

VII. To direct the respondents to make provisions for terminally ill and chronically sick children with disabilities as well as adult and aged persons with disabilities for providing life ling care, protection and medical treatment free of cost, irrespective of the type of disability. 

VIII. To direct the respondents to provide with appropriate social security to the destitute and abandoned children as well as adult and aged persons with disabilities, till their death, irrespective of the type of disability. 

IX. To direct the respondents to streamline the admission of persons afflicted with mental illness in appropriate Pshychiatric Rehabilitation Centres. 

X. To direct the respondents to form a Monitoring Authority or Enforcement Mechanism at the State as well as District levels which can be empowered to supervise and report to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the State Commissioner for the Disabled about the proper implementation of the provisions of the Act in the respective States.

XI. To direct the respondents to entrust the State and District Legal Services Authority with the task of protecting the rights of persons with Disabilities. 

XII. To direct the respondents to bring all the social legislations viz., 

i. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 

ii. The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999; and

iii. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 under one umbrella; and 

XIII. To direct the respondents to empower the State and District Legal Service Authorities to supervise the smooth functioning of the above Acts at all levels. 

The writ petition was registered as Public Interest Litigation, pursuant to the letter written by the petitioner.  Taking note of the issues raised in the petition, directions were issued by this Court while taking cognizance of the matter and sought for compliance. 

The compliance report has been submitted from time to time. Below the interim order passed on 10 December 2020. 

   

 After the registration of the petition, there are changes not only in terms of the position of law, but even in reference to the administrative instructions, such as Guidelines for the Government/Public transport. Rules of 2017 was introduced and Rule 15 of the Rules 2017 was applicable. The Harmonised Guidelines was also issued and thereby, there is a sea change subsequent to the registration of the case on all the issues.

In view of the above, it would be appropriate to close the writ petition with liberty to the writ petitioner to come up with a fresh writ petition if any issue remains unaddressed. There will be no order as to costs.

Read the final dated order dated 05 July 2022 embedded below: 

Supreme Court of India | Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. Union of India & Anr | 26 March 2014

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.M. Lodha, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra

Case No. & Title : WP (Civil) No. 116 OF 1998, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation  Vs. U.O.I. & Anr 

Date of Judgement:  26 March, 2014

Equivalent Citation : (2014) 14 SCC 383)

Author: R Lodha

-----------------

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 116 OF 1998

JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION             ....Petitioner(s)

     VERSUS

 U.O.I. & ANR                                                                          ......Respondent(s)

WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 430 OF 2000 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6442 OF 1998 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6443 OF 1998 

J U D G M E N T 

R.M. LODHA, J. :

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998 In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner – a charitable trust, the prayers made are (i) for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, '1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii) for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and college of various Universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 41 of the Constitution of India.

2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (one) Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (two) University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were impleaded as party respondents.

3. On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment of the States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly, respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded as party respondents.

4. On 13.09.2001, the Court directed the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India to be impleaded as party respondent and consequently it has been impleaded as respondent No. 35.

5. Then on 18.02.2009, the Court directed Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of various States and Union Territories to be impleaded as party respondents and consequently respondent Nos. 36 to 70 have been impleaded who are Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in different States and Union Territories.

6. Certain interim orders have been passed by this Court from time to time.

7. Insofar as U.G.C. (respondent No. 2) is concerned, the Court was informed on 19.03.2002 through counter affidavit that U.G.C. has acted in compliance of the 1995 Act. In paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, it was stated :

"3. It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, the appropriate government (Government of India) has updated the list of identified posts. This list has been issued vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 178 dated 30.6.2001. In this list, the posts of University/College/School Teacher for the blind and low-vision have been listed at Sl. No. 24-27 on page No. 592.

6.  The Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities has taken cognizance of  the arrangements  provided by  the University  Grants Commission  for  persons  with   disabilities by of  extending  5% relaxation  in  cut  off marks, appearing  in the NET for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship.  Thus, the arrangement  extended    by  UGC is in consonance with the policy stand taken by Govt. of India in so far as  relaxation  in    minimum standard     is concerned. Relaxation in standards has  been  favoured only when the candidates  belonging  to reserved  categories  are not available on  the basis  of  the  general standard to fill  all the vacancies reserved  for them.

7.   The relaxation extended to SC & ST candidates as per Maintenance of Standard 1998 of   the Universities, provides for a 5% relaxation from 55 %  to 50% in  the marks obtained at Master's Degree.  Since reservation for the disabled is  called   horizontal reservation which cuts  across all   vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General. Therefore, all such blind/ low- vision persons who belonged to SC, ST vertical category would automatically enjoy the benefit  of 5 % relaxation at the minimum qualifying  marks  obtained at Master's Degree level. Thus, only the blind  and  low vision belonging to OBC & General categories  are deprived of  the relaxation of 5% marks at masters' level.

8.  The blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons belonging to SC & ST category are in any case enjoying the benefit of 5% relaxation in  marks obtained at the  master's level for appearing in the NET  examination conducted by the UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled at par with SC & ST disabled would bring  parity amongst all persons with disabilities irrespective  of their vertical categories."

8. Thus, insofar as U.G.C. is concerned, this Court in the order 19.03.2002 observed that nothing survives for consideration and the matter is disposed of as against U.G.C.

9. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the Union of India and the State Governments to file their responses in the form of affidavits within a period of four weeks, failing which it was observed that the Court may be compelled to direct personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States though the Court would like to avoid in making such a direction. Some of the States have filed their responses and some have not.

10. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions of the 1995 Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years and thereby defeating the very purpose of such law and legislative policy. The Union, States, Union Territories and all those upon whom obligation has been cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the governments in the matter such as this has to be proactive. In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently abled citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity.

11. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act came to be passed and yet we are confronted with the problem of implementation of the 1995 Act in its letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union Territories and other establishments to which it is made applicable.

12. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India, informs us that insofar as Union of India is concerned, it has implemented the provisions of the 1995 Act and the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act has been done.

13. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be implemented in the letter and spirit by the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories without any delay, if not implemented so far.

14. We, accordingly, direct the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014.

15. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, the Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators of Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner of the Union of India and the Commissioners of the State Governments and Union Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act in all respects including with regard to visually disabled persons within the above time.

16. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 1998, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 430 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 6443 of Writ Petitions and Appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment passed today in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998.

2. No costs.

3. Interlocutory Applications for intervention and impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998, in view of the above, do not survive and they stand disposed of as such.

..............................J. (R.M. LODHA)

..............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

 ..............................J.  (DIPAK MISRA)

 NEW DELHI;      MARCH 26, 2014       

 

Read the judgement embedded below: