Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Landmark Judgment: Upholding Rights of Persons with Disabilities Against Unjust Transfer [Judgement included]

Court: Delhi High Court 

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Case Title: Bhavneet Singh Vs  Ircon International Ltd. through Chairman & MD & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 12404/2022, CM APPL. Nos. 37256/2022 & 10458/2023

Decided on: 15th December 2023

Cases Refered:  Net Ram Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022

Post Script:- This matter was challenged by Respondent IRCON International in LPA 133 of 2024 and was rejected. 

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager within the Human Resource Management department, is a person with a severe benchmark physical disability, specifically a 72% permanent locomotor disability. The respondent, IRCON International Ltd., is a prominent public sector turnkey construction company operating under the Ministry of Railways. The petitioner initially joined the corporate headquarters in New Delhi on December 15, 2017. Over the course of his employment, he faced consecutive institutional re-locations, including a transfer to a subsidiary in Noida in March 2020 and a subsequent repatriation back to the Delhi Corporate Office in March 2022.

Following legal representations regarding promotion blockades and an active complaint filed before the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities challenging non-adherence to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the management issued a show-cause notice concerning attendance variations. Shortly thereafter, on August 22, 2022, IRCON issued an office order transferring the petitioner out of New Delhi to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project in Bilaspur, followed immediately by a formal relieving order on August 23, 2022.

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash these orders. He presented extensive medical evidence demonstrating that he wears a knee-length prosthetic Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) on his left leg, which requires continuous engineering maintenance and clinical adjustments at a specialized facility in Delhi where he has been tracked for seven years. Additionally, he has been undergoing critical neurological treatment at Fortis Hospital, Noida, for over a decade to closely monitor degenerative changes in his spine through regular MRI diagnostic tracking.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Paternalistic Re-location Alibi: IRCON countered by stating that the petitioner had explicitly accepted a universal pan-India transferability clause upon initial appointment. They argued that the transfer was driven purely by administrative resource allocation requiring an experienced HR hand in Bilaspur. The management asserted that Bilaspur is a thoroughly developed city serving as a major zonal headquarters, featuring extensive medical facilities covered under corporate expense packages, free bachelor accommodation, and special transport perks. They also argued that the petition was premature and should have been brought solely before the Chief Commissioner.

• The Systemic Targeting Discrepancy: The petitioner exposed an institutional contradiction in how the company handled workforce rotation. He pointed to IRCON’s own Job Rotation Policy Circular (No. 34/2022), which mandated that employees stationed at a single location for 5 years or more must be rotated. The petitioner proved that multiple non-disabled employees who far exceeded these time limits were retained at the Delhi corporate office, while he was selectively picked for displacement. Furthermore, the petitioner cited an identical precedent where another visually impaired HR official, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, was transferred to the exact same project in Chhattisgarh but was swiftly repatriated to Delhi after the Chief Commissioner intervened.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an operational transfer clause in an employment contract allows a public sector enterprise to uproot an employee with a 72% locomotor disability, ignoring specific, localized clinical and prosthetic healthcare requirements.

2. Whether an administrative re-location that ignores central executive guidelines and DoPT Office Memorandums protecting disabled workers from rotational transfers violates the mandate of equality under Article 14.

Observations & Findings of the Court

Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh allowed the petition, explaining that standard corporate mobility principles cannot override constitutional protections for disabled workers:

• The Welfare Mandate of the State: The Court observed that India, as a progressive welfare State, is bound by domestic legislations and international treaties like the UNCRPD to ensure equal opportunity and eliminate environmental and institutional barriers for persons with disabilities at the workplace.

• Sustaining Executive Guidelines: The Court closely reviewed multiple DoPT Office Memorandums (including OMs dated 10.05.1990, 13.03.2002, and 31.03.2014), ruling that they create clear legal parameters. Disabled employees must be structurally exempted from standard rotational transfer tracks, and their preferred location choices must be prioritized to maintain continuity of care and workplace performance.

• No Dilution of Rights: Citing the Apex Court's decision in Net Ram Yadav, the Court held that once a specific protection or benefit has been granted to disabled individuals via government circulars, an employer cannot introduce conditions that strip away those rights or render them useless.

• Empathy as a Constitutional Anchor: The Court emphasized that judicial review in these matters requires an empathetic approach to ensure protections under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 are fully realized:

  "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."

• Violation of Article 14 Established: The Bench concluded that forcing the petitioner to relocate to another state would break the clinical continuity of his treatment, directly violating Article 14 by treating a severely disabled employee on equal footing with non-disabled workers while ignoring his specific medical needs.

Directions Issued

Finding that the administrative orders were arbitrary and legally unsustainable, the Single Judge issued the following directions:

• The impugned Transfer Order dated August 22, 2022, and the corresponding Relieving Order dated August 23, 2022, transferring the petitioner to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project, were officially set aside.

• The petitioner was protected from interstate transfer, ensuring his ongoing access to specialized prosthetic maintenance and neurological tracking within the National Capital Region.

• The writ petition was formally allowed, and all associated pending applications were disposed of.

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 Court Judgement dated 15 Dec 23 below:

Court of CCPD issues notice to Ola Cabs on disability discrimination meted out to a disabled veteran refusing to accept the wheelchair for ride.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India.

Presided by: Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, CCPD

Case Title: Wing Commander Shantanu Vs. Ola Cabs.

Date of Notice/Order: 15 Dec 2023

Brief: 

The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) has issued a notice to Ola Cabs in response to a complaint filed by Wing Commander Shantanu, a para shooter, and a veteran of the Indian Air Force. The notice addresses the alleged denial by an Ola Cab driver to accept the wheelchair of the para shooter, who has an 80% locomotor disability.

According to the complaint lodged with the CCPD, Wing Commander Shantanu had booked an Ola cab to travel a short distance from the Karni Singh Shooting Range, where he was participating in the 1st Khelo India Para Games, to a location 3 kilometres away on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 as there was no space in the rear boot, occupied by a CNG kit, the para shooter’s wife requested the driver to place the folded wheelchair in the back seat—a common practice among sedan cab drivers.

However, the specific Ola driver, whose details have been withheld, reportedly responded aggressively, using derogatory language, and demanded that the couple exit the cab, refusing to accommodate the wheelchair.

Feeling aggrieved and humiliated by this encounter, the Air Force veteran complained to the CCPD, seeking redress and action against the driver. The CCPD, viewing the allegations as an affront to the dignity of a person with a disability, particularly a soldier and sportsperson, has issued a notice to Ola Cabs.

The notice requires Ola to respond within 30 days, addressing the reported ill-treatment and ensuring necessary action is taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Navigating Indian towns poses unique challenges for individuals using wheelchairs. The infrastructure often lacks proper accessibility features, such as ramps or elevators, footpaths, making it difficult for wheelchair users to access public spaces, including sidewalks and buildings.

Narrow and crowded streets further complicate mobility, hindering the smooth movement of wheelchairs. Additionally, public transportation systems may not be wheelchair-friendly, with limited or no provisions for boarding and disembarking.

The overall lack of awareness and accommodation in public spaces contributes to the daily struggles faced by wheelchair users, impacting their ability to move freely and independently in Indian towns despite their equal right to use public transport and public spaces.

Source: Press Release, Govt. of India

Court of CCPD issues interim directions to Govt. Functionaries to meet disabled visitors on ground floor or other accessible place, until their building is made accesssible.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India.

Bench: Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, CCPD

Case No. 14580/1101/2023

Case Title:  Suo Motu in Virali Modi's marrige registration on inaccessible floor case.

Date of Notice/Order: 09 Nov 2023

Introduction

In a landmark judicial intervention, the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), Government of India, recently took suo motu cognizance of a distressing incident involving Ms. Virali Modi, a bride who faced severe accessibility challenges at the office of a marriage registrar in Maharashtra. Ms. Modi, a wheelchair user, encountered significant hurdles on her wedding day, underscoring systemic deficiencies in accommodating persons with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("the Act").

Background and Legal Framework

The court's intervention was prompted by the distressing treatment Ms. Modi received despite prior arrangements and the knowledge of her specific needs. This incident, emblematic of broader accessibility issues nationwide, prompted the Chief Commissioner's proactive step to initiate a quasi-judicial proceeding. The goal was to address not only the specific case but also to highlight systemic failures across public service sectors in ensuring barrier-free access.

Respondents' Submissions and Court Actions

Respondent No. 1, representing the Maharashtra government, acknowledged the gravity of the incident and detailed corrective actions taken, including the suspension and relocation of responsible officials. The Central Public Works Department (CPWD), speaking on behalf of Respondent No. 3, raised concerns regarding retrofitting challenges and sought court guidance on budgetary provisions for necessary modifications.

Judicial Observations and Interim Directions

The court's observations underscored the widespread non-compliance with accessibility norms, despite clear statutory mandates under Sections 44, 45, and 46 of the RPwD Act. These sections mandate adherence to accessibility guidelines for all new constructions and the retrofitting of existing structures within specified timeframes, measures which have not been consistently implemented nationwide.

The Court of CCPD issued following interim directives aimed at immediate compliance:-

(1) The time limit for making old public buildings accessible is already over and considering that the public services run by the government are generally monopolistic, leaving no choice to the customer or citizen/beneficiary to seek the service elsewhere. Hence, concerned officers of any government office across the country, whether a central government or a state government establishment or a local government, officiating from any buildings/premises which are still not made accessible, shall go down to the ground floor or any other place in the building/premises which is accessible for divyangjan along with necessary staff and equipment and provide the service there itself. This shall be applicable to any public service including outsourced service by the government such as the Passport/Visa services, Jan Suvidha Kendras, CSC etc.

(2) The CPWD/State PWD/Municipal Corporation or any other agency, responsible of giving fitness or rent reasonability certificate for hiring or renting or renewal of the hiring or renting of any public or private building shall not give certificates unless the building is accessible. If a government establishment owning or managing a building or operating from a building which is not accessible and is not also willing to prioritise the required work of alteration, then the public works department concerned shall report the matter to their head of the department with information to this Court or the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities concerned, as the case may be.

(3) Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs to furnish the details of training modules developed for implementation of the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India- 2021 and the number of engineers, architects and town planners who have been trained on the subject within 30 days of the issue of these RoPs. MoHUA will also indicate the compliance status and steps taken to ensure implementation of Section 44 of the Act.

(4) This Court is satisfied by the action taken by Respondent No. 1 & 4. Hence, their names be dropped from the array of parties in the matter. However, Respondent No. 2 & 3 shall continue to attend the hearings in this matter. Secretary, Department of Higher Education and Chairman, AICTE shall be impleaded in the matter, who shall within 30 days of the issue of these RoPs shall furnish details about incorporation of Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India- 2021 in the curriculum of Civil Engineering and Architecture Courses.

(5) The RoP shall be forwarded to all Secretaries of Government of India and Chief Secretaries of state governments and UT administration for their information and necessary action. This is to ensure compliance of direction in 3.3(1) above, which is repeated :"Concerned officers of any government office across the country, whether a central government or a state government establishment or a local government, officiating from any buildings/premises which are still not made accessible, shall go down to the ground floor or any other place in the building/premises which is accessible for divyangjan along with necessary staff and equipment and provide the service there itself. This shall be applicable to any public service including outsourced service by the government such as the Passport/Visa services, Jan Suvidha Kendras, CSC etc."

Conclusion

The case of Ms. Virali Modi serves as a poignant reminder of the imperative to translate legal mandates into actionable realities. The Chief Commissioner's proactive stance not only addressed immediate grievances but also set a precedent for rigorous enforcement of accessibility standards nationwide. As India continues its journey towards inclusivity, such judicial interventions play a crucial role in bridging the gap between policy intent and on-ground implementation, ensuring equitable access to public services for all citizens. 

This Suo-motu cognizance in the matter of obstacles, risks and humiliation faced by Divyangjan regarding non-accessibility of public services highlights the pivotal role of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in safeguarding the rights enshrined in the RPwD Act, advocating for a society where physical barriers no longer obstruct the fundamental rights of individuals with disabilities. 

Read the CCPD's Record of Proceedings

Court of CCPD issues Suo Motu notice to Department of Posts for use of inappropriate terms as "Lunatic Account" for a person with autism.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi

Case No: 14668/1102/2023 

Case Title: Suo Motu against Department of Posts, Govt. of India & Anr. 

Date of Notice: 07 Dec 2023

Brief:

The Court of CCPD has taken cognizance of a news item published in the daily, “The Hindu” on 21.11.2023 (Chennai Edition) which says that ‘Post office opens ‘Lunatic Account’ for autisticman; plaint lodged’. According to the news item, a senior citizen-a telecom family pensioner, approached the GKM Postal Colony Post Office in Chennai some months ago to open a savings account and term deposit account in the name of his son who has autism.  He had requested to open a Guardian Operated Account, furnishing his son’s National Disability Identity Card and the Guardianship Certificate given under the National Trust Act. His account was opened but citing a colonial-era legislation, Section 12 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, the Department of Posts is continuing the insensitive practice of classifying the account as “Lunatic Account”. 

Incidently, "as per the Section 12 of Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, persons with unsound mind or incapable of managing his affairs are defined as lunatics and as such, the same terminology is used in Post Office Saving Bank operations," clarified a communication from the department of posts.

The court highlighted the mandate of Section 13 of RPWD Act that provides that the appropriate government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities have rights equally with others to control their financial affairs and have access to bank loans and other forms of financial credit and enjoy legal capacity. The Section and the Preamble of the Act also provides that the autonomy, dignity, and privacy of persons with disability shall be respected;

The court also refered to the UN issued Disability Inclusive Language Guidelines launched by the United Nations in 2019 as part of its UN Disability Inclusion Strategy The said guidelines in its  Annexure I lists various commonly used terms, which should be avoided and has also mapped such terms with corresponding terms recommended by the UN. The policy of the UN aims to establish the highest levels of commitment and a vision for the United Nations system on disability inclusion for the next decade, and aims at establishing an institutional framework for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, among other international human rights instruments and development and humanitarian commitments.

Here is the Suo Motu Notice:

Delhi HC seeks Response of Delhi University on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Caste No(s): W.P.(C)  5390/2022

Title: Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order: 08 November 2023

Next Date of Hearing:  07 December 2023

Brief:

On a plea moved by one Jayant Singh Raghav, a student with visual disability of the Delhi University, raising the issue of provisions facilities and reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities during examinations.

The court asked the varsity to satisfy in the affidavit as to how the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the suggestions given by amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta have been implemented. “As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to file comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the University,” the court said.

On March 10, the amicus curiae had handed over his report to the court wherein certain suggestions qua physical infrastructure and accessibility in the CLC as well as regarding Raghav were made. The report suggested that the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) must be implemented immediately in CLC, Delhi University in time bound manner. 

It was also suggested that an access audit of CLC must be directed to be conducted immediately and a report be submitted to the court. The amicus curiae also suggested that at least 10 more ramps with tactile at various locations must be ordered to be erected immediately in the varsity and that a washroom for the disabled individuals be made functional on each floor as there was only one such toilet at present in the entire campus of CLC.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Univeristy submitted that the repair work in toilets, corridors, open areas and provision of tactile and other facilities for persons with disabilities at CLC has been completed by the agency upto the satisfaction of varsity’s competent authority.

However, the court said, “Needless to state that the same was not only the expectation or the requirement under the provisions of the Act of 2016 or in the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae. It is to be seen that there are various other requirements to be adhered to by the respondent no.1-University,”.

Here is a copy of the order dated 08 November 2023:-

Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench:  Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.
Caste No(s): W.P.(C) 17460/2022 
Title: Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others
Connected matter: W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 01 November 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7914-DB

Cases referred:  National Federation of the Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB

Brief:

The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).

The grievance was raised that the advertisements failed to provide the mandatory 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons as required under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was alleged that KVS had excluded persons with hearing disabilities from several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and Primary Teacher posts.

KVS defended its recruitment process by relying upon a 2013 notification identifying posts suitable for persons with disabilities and contended that an internal committee constituted by it had assessed suitability and excluded certain categories of disabilities from specific posts.

The petitioners argued that the 2013 notification had already been superseded by the Central Government notification dated 04 January 2021 issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, and that KVS had no authority to independently exclude identified posts from reservation.

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court held that the notification dated 04 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment governed the field at the time of recruitment and had superseded the earlier 2013 notification.  

The Court observed that the 2021 notification specifically identified several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and other teaching posts, as suitable for persons with disabilities.

It held that KVS had acted contrary to the statutory framework by constituting its own internal committee and excluding deaf and hard of hearing candidates from posts already identified by the appropriate government. The Court clarified that the power of identification and exemption vests exclusively with the appropriate government under the RPwD Act and cannot be assumed by autonomous institutions.

The Court further emphasised that reservation under Section 34 must be computed on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not selectively restricted through administrative practices.

Importantly, the Court recognised that the principle of reasonable accommodation is embedded within the statutory scheme and that institutions are under a positive obligation to create enabling conditions for participation of persons with disabilities, rather than viewing disability from the perspective of inconvenience.

The Court also noted a broader “policy disconnect” between the nodal ministry responsible for disability rights and recruiting institutions implementing reservation policies, observing that such inconsistency repeatedly compels persons with disabilities to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of basic statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• KVS was directed to provide 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons against the identified posts under the 2021 notification.
• The Court directed KVS to conduct a special recruitment drive for filling backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.
• Reservation was directed to be calculated on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the organisation.
• KVS was directed to complete the process of issuing fresh advertisements and filling reserved vacancies within stipulated timelines.
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was directed to issue suitable guidelines to ensure uniform implementation of reservation policies across departments.

Commentary

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the statutory architecture under the RPwD Act and significantly limits the ability of recruiting bodies to dilute disability reservation through internal administrative mechanisms. By holding that identification and exemption of posts are functions reserved exclusively for the appropriate government, the Court prevents institutions from selectively narrowing the scope of reservation through subjective notions of suitability.

A particularly important aspect of the ruling is its recognition that exclusion often operates not through express denial of rights, but through institutional practices that undermine the implementation of reservation in practice. The Court correctly identified that such practices effectively force persons with disabilities into repeated litigation merely to secure statutory entitlements already guaranteed by law.

The judgment also advances the principle of reasonable accommodation by treating it as an active institutional obligation rather than a discretionary measure. The Court’s observation that disability was being viewed “from the lens of inconvenience” reflects an important critique of entrenched administrative attitudes that continue to shape exclusionary recruitment practices.

At the same time, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach by declining to disturb completed recruitment processes, instead directing future corrective measures and backlog recruitment. While this avoided disruption to existing appointments, it also meant that immediate structural relief to affected candidates remained limited. Nevertheless, the decision substantially strengthens enforceability of disability reservation and reinforces that administrative bodies cannot override statutory guarantees through internal policies or committees.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 17460/2022 dated 01 Nov 2023