CAT Delhi | Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Others. | OA No.243/2021 | 08 Jul 2021

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

Akhand Pratap Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 July, 2021

Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy

                             
OA No.243/2021
This the 8th day of July, 2021
 (Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

       Akhand Pratap Singh,
       S/o Shri Balbir Singh,
       R/o Kh. No.13/10 and 13/1,
       H.No.13 UGF,
       Gali No.13, Bhagat Colony, West Sant Nagar,
       Burari, Delhi-110084.
       Aged about 38 years                                                     ... Applicant
  

                                    Versus

       1.    GNCT of Delhi
             Through Chief Secretary,
             5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
             I.P.Estate, New Delhi.

       2.    Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
             Through Chairman,
             F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
             Delhi-110092.

       3.    South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
             Through its Commissioner,
             Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
             New Delhi-110002.

       4.    North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
             Through its Commissioner,
             4th floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
             Minto Road,
             New Delhi-110002.
                                                                                       ... Respondents


O R D E R (ORAL)

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Board), respondent no.2 herein, issued a notification in the year 2013 for selection to six posts of Assistant Law Officer, (ALO) to be appointed in the Municipal Corporations of Delhi. One of the posts was reserved in favour of Physically Handicapped Category (PH). The applicant was one of the candidates under that category. A written test comprising of Tier-I and Tier-II was held and a short list of the candidates, who cleared the same, was published on 02.11.2017. The name of the applicant figured therein. However, in the final result published on 01.06.2018, the applicant was shown at SI. No.2 in the PH category, and one Mr. Neel Mani was at SI. No.1.

2. The applicant contends that Mr. Neel Mani did not join the post on account of the fact that he was selected in CBI. It is stated that the applicant submitted a representation on 15.04.2019 with a request to consider his case for appointment against the available vacancy. Correspondences were also ensued among the applicant, NDMC, SDMC and the Board, i.e. respondent no.2. The Board refused to accede to the request of the applicant as well as the Corporations, on the OA No.243/2021 Item No.29 ground that the vacancy lapsed on 31.05.2019 in terms of Clause 11 of the advertisement. It is in this background, that the applicant filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of ALO, with Post Code No. 47/2013.

3. The applicant contends that he was placed at Sl. No.2 in the selection list and once the candidate at Sl. No.1 did not join, he is entitled to be considered. It is also stated that the selection process was spread over 6 to 7 years and when he is at the verge of selection, the respondents are trying to deny him the benefit of selection.

4. The respondents filed separate counter affidavits. The Board contends that the selection process is governed by the various conditions stipulated in the notification itself, and the waiting list prepared for this purpose has elapsed on expiry of one year. They contend that the very requisition for the dossier of the next candidate was received from the Municipal Corporation on 03.06.2019 and by that time, the waiting list has lapsed.

5. Respondents No.3 and 4 filed their separate counter affidavits which in a way support the plea of the applicant.

6. Today, we heard Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anuj Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - DSSSB, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for 3rd respondent and Mr. D.S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

7. The issue is in a very narrow compass. The notification was issued in the year 2013, and the selection as such has taken place only in the year 2019. The applicant was a candidate under PH category and he was placed at SI. No.2 in the merit list. Since only one post was available, he was put in the waiting list. Clause 11 of the advertisement reads as under:-

"11. The DSSSB shall draw a reserve panel/waiting list upto the extent of 10% of the posts notified, in addition to the number of candidates selected as per the notified vacancies. The reserve panel/waiting list shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result and the vacancies arising due to non-acceptance of the offer of appointment, not joining the post after acceptance of appointment, the candidate not found eligible for appointment or due to resignation of selected candidates, within one year of joining the post, shall be filled up from this reserve panel/waiting list."

From this, it is evident that the waiting list would be in operation for a period of one year. In the instant case, the developments took place almost as flash points. The selected candidate, namely Mr. Neel Mani was issued an offer of appointment sometime in January, 2019. The Corporation OA No.243/2021 Item No.29 went on writing to the selected candidate to report to duty. The final notice was issued on 27.05.2019 and he was informed that if he does not join within three days, his appointment shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Immediately thereafter, the 4th respondent forwarded the dossier of Mr. Neel Mani to 3rd respondent, for onward transmission to the Board. The formal cancellation of the candidature was done only on 31.05.2019.

8. If one takes into account, the very objective underlying the preparation and maintenance of wait list, it is only to avoid the possibility of the post remaining vacant even after the selection process was concluded. The selecting agency has to make huge efforts to filter the candidates and then publish the select list. If for any reason, a selected candidates do not join, the looser will not be just the candidate or the selecting agency, but the user department, and thereby public at large. Once the selection process in this case was spread over seven years, counting of a day this way or that way should not make much difference, particularly when the applicant is a candidate with physical disability. We are of the view that the existing vacancy of the post of ALO reserved in favour of PH category can be offered to the applicant, who is next in the merit.

9. We, therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as ALO against the vacancy reserved in favour of PH category after due verification, by treating that the wait list was alive, when the requisition was received. On being appointed, the applicant shall hold the office prospectively, without any benefit anterior to the date of appointment. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

       (Aradhana Johri)                 (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
         Member (A)                                 Chairman

       Sunita/lg/pj
 

Supreme Court while upholding the Kerala HC judgement directed State of Kerala to provide reservation in promotion on all post after identifying said posts within 3 months.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Case No. : Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2021

Case Title: The State of Kerala & Ors Vs.  Leesamma Joseph 

Date of Judgement: 28 June 2021

Brief:

This was an appeal against the order of the Kerala High Court on the issue of reservation in promotion of a disabled women employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds and not on disability quota hence was not extended the reservation in promotion for disabled. The matter was persued before the Administrative Tribunal which dismissed her case.  However, the High Court subsequently overturned the Tribinual's order and allowed her case against which the State went to Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court praised the Order of the High Court as salutary and expressed that it did not call for any interference. 

Supreme Court said, "In fact, what seems to emerge is that the appellant-State has not implemented the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta's and Siddaraju's cases(supra). Thus, we consider it appropriate to issue directions to the State of Kerala to implement these judgments and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. We are making it time bound so that the mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by making Section 32 as an excuse for not having identified the post.

Read the Judgement below:-

Supreme Court: Testimony of a witness with disability not inferior; intersectionality need to be taken in to account while determining the case.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Bench:  Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & Hon'ble Justice M R Shah

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 452 of 2021

Case Title: Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2021 INSC 272

Date of Judgement: April 27, 2021

Brief:

Testimony of a witness with disability cannot be considered inferior to that of their able-bodied counterparts only on account of the disability. Crimes against Women, Caste-based Violence, lntersectionality, Gender Evidence, Testimony of Person with Disability.

The case was about the rape of a girl with visual impairment belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The SC affirmed the conviction of the appellant for rape of the girl with visual impairment. The court discussed that it is imperative to take into account the inter sectionality while determining the case. The court emphasised that threats against women with disabilities in India are not uncommon and can lead to feelings of powerlessness. However, the court clarified that by this they did not mean to subscribe to the stereotype that persons with disabilities are weak and helpless, rather aim to highlight the increased vulnerability in such cases, and cited reports such as the 2018 report by Human Rights Watch. The court also gave certain guidelines including the need for Awareness-raising campaigns, in accessible formats, to inform women. 

USA: Justice Department moves unopposed motion to intervene as Plaintiff in a Disability Discrimination Suit Against City of Chicago Regarding Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities

Dear Colleagues,

This is a disability rights enforcement action by the Justice Department of United States of America against the City of Chicago, seeking to remedy the city’s failure to provide people who are blind, including those who are deaf-blind or have low vision, equal access to pedestrian safety information at intersection crossings, which the city provides almost exclusively through visual-only pedestrian signals.  The United States has sought declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief for this violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

Having moved an unopposed motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this disability discrimination lawsuit filed by private plaintiffs American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Maureen Heneghan and Ray Campbell against the City of Chicago under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the Department of Justice found in its investigation that the allegations were true.

The complaint alleges that the city of Chicago fails to provide people who are blind, have low vision, or are deaf-blind with equal access to pedestrian signal information at intersections. Pedestrian signal information, such as a flashing “Walk/Don’t Walk” signal, indicates when it is safe to cross the street. 

Accessible pedestrian signals (APSs) are devices that provide pedestrians with safe-crossing information in a non-visual format, such as through audible tones, speech messages, and vibrotactile surfaces. Since at least 2006, Chicago has recognised the need to install APSs for pedestrians with visual disabilities. Yet, while Chicago currently provides sighted pedestrians visual crossing signals at nearly 2,700 intersections, it has installed APSs at only 15 of those intersections. 

Thus over 99% of Chicago’s signalised intersections subjects people who are blind, have low vision, or are deaf-blind to added risks and burdens not faced by sighted pedestrians, including fear of injury or death which in contravening the ADA and Section 504 that require that individuals with disabilities have equal access to public services, including access to pedestrian crossing information that is critical for safety and for full participation in community life.

Petition seeks to ensure that Chicagoans with disabilities are provided equal access to city services, particularly those services whose purpose is public safety.

The motion and complaint seeking intervention were jointly filed by the Disability Rights Section of the department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Calcutta High Court: Removal from Job solely on ground of disability is violative of RPWD Act 2016

Court:                   Calcuta High Court

Bench:                  Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur 

Case Title:           Dr. Shishir Kumar Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. :            W.P.A. 16042 of 2018

Date of Order:   18.02.2021

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

Case brief:

Calcutta High Court has ruled that removing a disabled person from a job solely on the ground of his physical disability is a violation of the Rights of PwD (Persons with Disabilities) Act of 2016 and has set aside an order removing a blind Professor from the position of Head of the Bengali Department by the Haringhata Mahavidyalaya, primarily on the ground of his physical disability.

The petitioner, Dr. Shishir Kumar Biswas, a blind professor at Haringhata Mahavidyalaya was removed from the post of Head of Bengali Department due to his physical disability. The court observed that the act was a violation of three provisions of the Rights of PwD Act, particularly Section 20 of the  Act, which states that there cannot be any sort of discrimination against a person with any kind of disability in a matter that is related to his employment. The petitioner stated that the act of the concerned college was a clear violation of his constitutional rights and is not only illegal but also against the morals and principles of natural justice.

The court noted that the memo dated 31st July, 2017, whereby the petitioner was removed, is in direct violation and contravention of the provisions of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016.

"On a perusal of the impugned Memo it is evident that save and except physical disability on the ground of eye blindness, there is no other ground alleged in the impugned Memo whereby the petitioner has been removed as Departmental Head from the Department of Bengali in the concerned college.

I find that impugned Memo is also in direct violation and contravention of the 3 provisions of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 and particularly violative of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act," the Bench said.

Section 20 provides that no Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment. Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.

The court observed that there is nothing on record to support the impugned actions taken by the Managing Committee of the college. It thus set aside the impugned memo and directed the Respondent-authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Read the embedded judgement below:

Kerala HC- Double Bench dismissed the appeal against Single Bench order that directed the aided private educational institutes to implement reservation under Disabilities Act.

Court: Kerala High Court 

Bench: Mr. Justice A.M. Shaffique and Mr. Justice Gopinath P. 

Case No. : WA.No.1237 OF 2020 (against the Judgement in WP(C) 4753/2020(T) OF Hight Court of Kerala Dated 26/8/2020)   (Heard with WA.1238/2020, WA.1239/2020, WA.1242/2020, WA.131/2021)

Case Title (lead Case) : Secretary, NSS College Central Committee  Vs.  Renjith  J.V.

Date of Judgement: 04 Feb 2021

Brief:

Please refer to our earlier post titled Kerala HC: Aided Private Education Institutions are 'State' and need to implement reservation for persons with disabilities, dated 27 Aug 2022

The Respondent in the WP 4753 of 2020 had gone in appeal in the present case before the double bench, however the Bench dismissed the appeal finding no merits and that the contentions raised were similarly to many other cases already decided by the Supreme court of India.

The main contention urged on behalf of the Consortium of Catholic School Managements in Kerala was that Ext.P8 order cannot be enforced since no posts had been identified to be filled up in terms of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act and Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act.

It was also contended that the posts which had been notified are relating to Government departments, Government schools and colleges and do not have any relation to the creation of posts with reference to aided schools and colleges. And, thefore, it was argued that unless the posts in such aided schools and colleges are notified in terms of the statutory provision, incorporating Exts. P3 to P7 Government Orders will not suffice.

The bench, however, did not find any of these arguments sustainable in light of catena of previoous judgements of the hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [(2014) 14 SCC 383)].  Government of India through Secretary and Another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626], Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 13 SCC 153],  Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992Suppl (3) SCC 217], and therefore, dismissed the appeal.  

Read the detailed Judgement below:

Delhi HC- We expect the JNU to continue complying with the provisons of 5% reservation in Higher Education under RPWD Act 2016 in future too.

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice D.N. Patel, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 3471/2020

Case Title: Javed Abidi Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 06 November 2020

Cases Referred:   

• W.P.(C) 3817/2018  titled National Federation of Blind v. Union of India & Ors. [2018 SCC Online Del 12367]
• Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Anr.; [(2017) 14 SCC 1]

Act: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

Brief of the case 

The petitioner challenges the inaction of  Jawaharlal Nehru University in implementing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2016”), whcih provides that  minimum 5% reservation should be maintained for students with benchmark disabilities in Higher Education Institutions, whereas Jawaharlal Nehru University is not maintaining the aforesaid minimum percentage of reservation in the Admission Process of the students in various schools/centres.

Petitioner also cited W.P.(C) 3817/2018  titled National Federation of Blind v. Union of India & Ors. in which the Delhi HC court had remarked that University cannot violate the mandate of the law.

However, the Jawahar Lal University assured the Court that the procedure and mechanism of clubbing will be publicised in detail in subsequent academic years, to ensure that candidates are fully aware of the provisions and able to decide which schools and courses to apply to. Having gone through the facts and reasons, the Court felt that Jawaharlal Nehru University is complying with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in prescribing and in giving reservations in admission to various schools in Jawaharlal Nehru University. And the court expect from the respondent No.3 – Jawaharlal Nehru University that they shall maintain minimum 5% reservation for the persons with disabilities in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2016 in future also. 33. 

The court diposed off the petition saying, "We see no reason to give any further directions in this writ petition and the same is therefore disposed of with the above observations."

Read the order below:

Bombay High Court declares BMC circular illegal, directs payment of full salaries to disabled employees for absence during pandemic period

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier post  'NAB takes the BMC to High Court for denying full salaries to disabled and older employees during lockdown' detailing the public interest litigation filed by the National Association of Blind after the civic body did not pay full salaries to the 268 visually impaired employees.

Accepting the petitioner's contention that the country’s richest civic body had shown “its inhuman an insensitive face, much to the detriment and prejudice of its physically disabled employees” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court, in their 63-page judgment passed on 28th October 2020 (Wednesday),  has held that the BMC's circular and its action of withholding pay during the pandemic were illegal and said, "we direct the corporation to ensure that none of the physically disabled employees, who did not report for duty during the pandemic are denied pay benefits “which they would have been entitled to, but for the pandemic and had they reported for duty”.

On 27 March 2020, the central government through an OM issued by DoPT exempted all government employees with disabilities from reporting for duty during the lockdown saying, "“All ministries and departments are advised to exempt persons with disabilities (PwD) from duties while drawing up roster of employees required to attend to essential services”.

Similar directions were issued by the Maharashtra government on 21 April 2020 exempting disabled employees from attending offices and that the period of absence may be treated as Special Leave without loss of pay. 

On May 2, the BMC announced that its disabled staffers were entitled to a special leave without loss of pay. But, on May 26, it issued a circular  that it was not a special leave, but a permissible leave which requires sanction and involves a pay loss. The circular directed that its disabled employees be given leave which is permitted under the Municipal Services Act. Under this, if these employees have used up sanctioned leaves, they will not get a salary if they don’t report for work. The BMC has nearly 1,150 physically disabled employees, including 278 visually impaired.

The judges noted that while the BMC initially favoured exemption, a “change of mindset resulted in revision of its earlier decision” and it was not backed by tangible evidence of physically disabled employees not facing inconvenience or discomfort while travelling to their workplace or “reference to any incident that could act as a trigger for such decision”. “If the civic body was not inclined to offer financial benefits, like pay physically disabled employees who do not report for duty, it was its duty as a model employer to make special arrangements for public transport or special measures to ensure hassle-free travel for these employees...”

The judges added that the right to free access is a right guaranteed by the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. Although it casts a duty on the state, nothing prevented the BMC as local authority from taking suitable measures for its physically disabled employees.

The judges said the BMC’s ‘flip-flop’ has intrigued them and there was no explanation for it. “This volte-face deserves to be viewed seriously and disapproved strongly.” 

The court said, “The circular requires judicial intervention. The circular and its action of withholding pay is held illegal.”  The Bench said that the payment must be made in two instalments, the first must be paid before Diwali and the second must be paid within 45 days from the date of the first instalment.

Watch out this space for the PDF Judgement soon...

Manhattan Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer rules "NYC has violated the ADA by not installing accessible pedestrian signlas for the blind."

Dear Colleages, 

A federal lawsuit, brought by the the American Council of the Blind in 2018, sued NYC Govt. on behalf of plaintiffs Michael Golfo and Christina Curry, claiming that out of the city’s 13,000 pedestrian traffic signals, just over 2 percent conveyed information in a way that is accessible to blind pedestrians. 

The lawsuit argued that the city’s Department of Transportation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by neglecting to add audible features to crosswalk signals that let visually impaired people know when they have the traffic signal. There are about 205,000 blind or otherwise visually-impaired people who live in the city and face this inaccessible and hostile environement. 

The arguments have found favour with the District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and on 20 Oct 2020, the court ruled  the current “near-total absence” of accessible crossing information violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal disability law that preceded the ADA.

The tuesday ruling notes that blind pedestrians in New York will typically stop at the curb and assume they are at a point where they can cross the street. Without any accessible indicator of a crossing, however, blind pedestrians cross somewhere other than the crosswalk 30 percent of the time. This leaves them to rely on other auditory cues, which is prohibitively difficult with New York’s level of ambient noise. 

In particular, Engelmayer ruled the city had failed to equip traffic signals with accessible pedestrian signals — APS for short — which include alarms or other audible alerts. The Court held that the absence of non-visual crossing information at more than 95% of the City’s signalized intersections denies plaintiffs meaningful access to the City’s signalized intersections and the pedestrian grid, in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act,” Engelmayer wrote.

“The Court further holds that some, but not all, of the City’s projects with respect to traffic signals gave rise to a duty under these statutes to add APS [Accessible Pedestrian Signals]—a duty that the City has largely breached.”

The Court ordered  the NYC lawyers to seek an agreement with petitioners to make more intersections safe for pedestrians who cannot see. The two sides must submit a letter to the court by Oct. 30 laying out a path forward to come to a resolution, which could include benchmarks and deadlines for adding APS to street signals.   Though, the court's ruling itself does not specify how many signals must be installed.

Mayor de Blasio spokeswoman Laura Feyer said the city is already working to expand accessibility for blind people at crosswalks — but declined to provide a timeline for the installation of more infrastructure to make good on the judge’s ruling. 

“The city is dedicated to making our streets more accessible to all New Yorkers with and without disabilities, including those who are blind or have low vision,”  “We will continue to install APS across the city and are consistently working to increase access for the blind and low vision community in all facets of life.”  said Feyer.

Sources: 

1. pressfrom dot info

2. NYDailyNewsdotcom

NAB takes the BMC to High Court for denying full salaries to disabled and older employees during lockdown

Dear Colleagues,

National Association of Blind (NAB) Mumbai has dragged the Brihanmumbai Muncipal Corporation (BMC) to the Mumbai High Court in a public interest litigation (PIL) which seeks payment of full salaries to 278 visually impaired BMC employees for the period when the lockdown was implemented in its strictest form – March 23 to June 30.  

An affidavit opposing the PIL signed by Vishwanath Jadhav, joint chief personnel officer of the establishment section of the BMC’s General Administration Department,  says that paying full salaries to these employees will adversely affect its finances.

It was learnt that the BMC denied full salaries for the strictest lockdown phase to not just its visually-impaired employees, but also to the physically disabled and those above 55 years of age, who were exempted from attendance on health grounds, the affidavit indicates. 

The affidavit, defending BMC’s decision to not pay full salaries to the visually impaired employees, refers to the money “the BMC may have to pay” to the physically disabled as well.

It says, “If these categories of employees are granted special leave without loss of pay, the respondent corporation will be required to pay approximately Rs12.22 crore (Rs 2.75 crore for visually impaired employees and Rs 9.47crore for other disabled employees).”

The next sentence specifies another category of employees which may seek parity from the BMC if the court were to ask it to pay salaries for the same period to the disabled employees.

The affidavit says, “Similarly, the corporation has granted relaxation in attending duties to approximately 283 employees beyond 55 years of age having health issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure and dialysis (for kidney ailments). Similar demand will be raised by these categories of employees, even though they are not eligible, and if they are to be treated according to the same principle, then the corporation will have to pay approximately Rs 422.59 crore, which will adversely affect its financial condition.”

Appearing for the NAB, advocate Uday Warunjikar,  submitted before the court that BMC had nullified its liability to the visually impaired employees with retrospective effect, as its directive issued in March, only exempted these employees from attending offices. However, a directive issued on May 26, 2020 said that the relevant period will be treated as “permissible leave.”

He said that while he had details of only one employee at the time of filing the PIL, the NAB had managed to get details of more than 25 employees to show that it wasn’t just the salary for the relevant period, which was affected, but the situation continues as the BMC was recovering “arrears” of salary deductions from them, forcing them to work on zero or extremely low pay.

The PIL cites the directives of the state government as well as the Centre since March 2020 to show that they had exempted disabled employees from attendance and one such directive said that they be treated on “leave without loss of pay.”

Senior Advocate BV Bukhari, appearing for the BMC, submitted that the BMC was not bound by the resolutions or notifications of the state or the Central government, as it was a local self-government body.

He said that the BMC was not only following the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, but, in fact, was doing more than what other governments were doing.

The court, however, questioned the BMC’s assertion that it was not bound to follow the notifications of the state or the Central government, saying it was doing so in certain other aspects related to the pandemic. 

The bench has reserved its judgement on the PIL. 

Update (29 Oct 2020):

....... Read subsequent post on the PIL judgement here:  "Mumbai High Court declares BMC circular illegal, directs payment of full salaries for absence during pandemic period"