Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 980 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2025
Relevant Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Sections 75 and 76)
Cases Referred:
-
Anamika vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1084
-
Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, SC
-
Ramanand vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3292
Introduction
In a significant judgment delivered on 2 April 2025, the Delhi High Court examined the powers and authority of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), especially regarding the issuance of interim recommendations in service-related matters.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, a government employee with locomotor disability, was posted at the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), Faridabad. He was transferred to NPTI's regional centre at Durgapur, which he challenged as being unreasonable, discriminatory, and in violation of his rights under the RPwD Act.
Alleging mala fide intent and harassment due to frequent transfers, he filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The CCPD, after preliminary review, directed the Institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance. NPTI challenged this direction before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who set aside the CCPD’s order, prompting the present intra-court appeal.
Issues Considered
- Whether the CCPD can interfere in service matters such as transfers under the RPwD Act?
- Whether orders or recommendations of the CCPD are binding on authorities?
- Whether the CCPD can issue interim directions during the pendency of proceedings?
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court undertook a comparative reading of the 1995 and 2016 disability laws. Under the 1995 Act, the Chief Commissioner’s powers were primarily recommendatory and lacked enforceability. However, the 2016 Act brought a “remarkable change”, especially under Section 76, which prescribes that authorities must provide valid reasons if they choose not to implement the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner.
The Court observed:
“The law now mandates not merely that the recommendations be considered, but that they are presumed to be binding unless compelling reasons are given for their non-acceptance.”
It further clarified that even interim recommendations—like directing an employer to defer a transfer—are within the scope of CCPD’s authority, provided they are aimed at preventing potential violations of rights under the RPwD Act.
Importantly, the judgment reaffirms that service-related matters, while generally the employer’s domain, become subject to the scrutiny of the CCPD if they infringe upon statutory rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.
Final Order
The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the earlier Single Judge order. It held that:
- The CCPD’s direction to keep the transfer in abeyance should be treated as an “interim recommendation” under Sections 75 and 76 of the RPwD Act.
- The respondent, National Power Training Institute, is bound to consider this interim recommendation and, if rejecting it, must furnish valid reasons to both the CCPD and the complainant, Mukesh Kumar.
Significance of the Judgment
This is a landmark clarification on the enforceability of the CCPD’s role under the RPwD Act, 2016:
- Affirms the CCPD’s powers to intervene and issue interim relief.
- Elevates the status of its recommendations from mere advice to conditionally binding directives.
- Empowers persons with disabilities with a more robust and responsive mechanism for redress.
The ruling strengthens the quasi-judicial character of the office of the Chief Commissioner and reinforces the statutory teeth of the RPwD Act, particularly in employment and service-related disputes involving persons with disabilities.
Read the Judgment below: