The central legal point established is the obligation of the State to implement The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and provide relief to the disabled as a social welfare program.

Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. The enactment known as "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, caters to a special class of citizen, the incapiciated. This is human rights problem. The Act itself is result of, as mentioned in the order dated 23.8.2002 [reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 125] a convention known as Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992.

2. In the matter before the Court six cases have been filed before the High Court. The person with disability had to present six cases to seek relief. He is a clerk who was employed by the Zila Parishad. Earlier he had to come to the High Court on four occasions. He is Sardanand Tiwary. He was born disabled, he says in one of his cases, but while in service, was paralysed. His first case was C.W.J.C. No. 7748/96. He complained to the High Court that he is a handicapped employee. He was seeking salary during the period of his illness. The matter had to be examined by the department concerned. He did not receive salary with the result that he filed a contempt petition M.J.C. No. 3003/97. As a result, of these proceedings a cheque was handed over representing arrears of his salary. But, the aspect of emoluments not being paid to the disabled employee continued. He filed his third case C.W.J.C. No. 10915/99. A medical board of the State department certified that he is not fit to work but he did report for work. This means that the issue whether he was being accepted for work or not was kept alive by the department. He had been dismissed because he was unable to work, the department said. On this third petition, the High Court ordered that should Sarda Nand Tiwary, petitioner, be found to be entitled to any further monetary benefits then the respondent authorities should calculate and pay the same at an early date preferably within three months. The petitioner challenged this order by a Letters Patent Appeal. This petitioner had been dismissed from service. His sin ? His disability. This Letters Patent Appeal is pending. This was fourth case.

3. The condition of Sarda Nand Tiwary deteriorated. The next case was filed by his daughter seeking direction that if her father was incapable then she should be considered for appointment, on compassionate appointment under the Rule of Harness in public services. The Zila Parishad resisted the proposition. It said her case does not come under compassionate appointment category. The writ petition was dismissed (C.W.J.C. No. 6096/2002). The daughter has filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 733/2002). This Letters Patent Appeal is also pending. The court has before it the Letters Patent Appeal filed by her father who, in effect, seeks entitlement to emoluments with full medical leave and a Letters Patent Appeal of his daughter pleading that her father is as good as dead and that she should receive a job on the principle of compassionate ground applicable in public services.

4. The disability of Sarda Nand Tiwary is one which the law recognises under "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995. The question before the Court is that the law may recognise disability but has the State Government adopted the law so that the benefits of law be considered for the disabled. Unfortunately, in Bihar the Act has yet to see implementation. It is a sad story. It has been seven years since it was enacted. The State Government is escaping responsibility in avoiding the disabled. The record before the court shows no serious efforts were made to take the Act for the disabled seriously. No one, amongst those who are responsible to implement the Act, have shown neither inclination nor time to devote attention in detail to implement the Act.

5. But when a petition comes before the High Court the Court cannot shirk its shoulder and avoid the answer when a citizen seeks to claim r