IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Diganta Talukdar, S/o. Late Jiten Talukdar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Justice and Empowerment Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 5164 of 2023
Decided On : 08-09-2023
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 20(2) - Seeking a writ in nature of certiorari – Held, Court finds it relevant to observe that relief which have been sought for i.e. a writ in nature of certiorari to quash impugned decision of Respondent Authorities to oust Petitioner from his allotted Government quarter i.e. Cottage No.6 to accommodate Private Respondent No.5 as well as writ in nature of mandamus directing Respondent Authorities not to oust Petitioner from his allotted Government quarter Court does not survive taking into account that Petitioner on his own volition had surrendered quarter vide a communication - Court cannot also be unmindful of fact that Section 20 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 stipulates that every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disabilities - The records of writ petition shows that Petitioner was issued a unique disability ID and he claims to be 100% visually impaired - Respondent Authorities more particularly, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 are required to take appropriate action in terms with Section 20(2) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the ousting of the Petitioner from his allotted Government quarter i.e. Cottage No.6 in order to accommodate the Private Respondent No.5; for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities not to oust the Petitioner from his allotted Government quarter i.e. Cottage No.6 as well as also a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to the Petitioner.
2. The facts involved in the instant case are that the Petitioner claims that he is a 100% visually impaired person working as a “Proof Reader” in the Government Braille Press, Basistha under the Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam. On 16.03.2009, the Manager, Government Braille Press, Basistha issued an office order by which the Petitioner was allotted a Government Braille Press quarter bearing Cottage No.6 which is near the Government Braille Press office for residential accommodation. The Petitioner along with his family started to reside in the said allotted Government quarter.
3. It is further seen from a perusal of the writ petition that the Petitioner claims that the said Government quarter i.e. Cottage No.6 was in a dilapidated condition for which the Petitioner time and again requested the Respondent Authorities to repair/renovate the Cottage No.6. However as nothing was done, on 19.07.2021, the Petitioner issued another communication to the Manager, Braille Press, Basistha stating inter alia that he was facing difficulties in staying in the said Cottage No.6 due to its deplorable and uninhabitable condition. The Petitioner also informed the Manager, Braille Press to repair/renovate the Government quarter, else he would be forced to shift to a rented house. As nothing was done, the Petitioner vacated the said Government quarter i.e. Cottage No.6 and shifted to a rented house. This aspect of the matter was duly informed to the Manager, Government Braille Press vide a communicated dated 29.10.2022. The Petitioner also requested the Manager of the Government Braille Press to provide house rent allowance that was previously deducted from his salary.
4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he was informed by reliable sources that the Cottage No.6 would be repaired by the Respondent Authorities and would be merged with the Cottage No.5. The Petitioner was also informed that the said renovation is being carried out to accommodate the Respondent No.5 who is neither an employee of the Government Braille Press nor a physically disabled person. Under such circumstances, on 07.07.2023, the Petitioner wrote to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Assam as well as the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment stating his concern over the entire issue and requested them to provide the repaired/renovated Government quarter to him. Upon receipt of the Petitioner’s letter on 07.07.2023 itself, the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Assam wrote to the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam requesting him to take action in view of Section 20(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, nothing was done for which the Petitioner again submitted a representation on 27.07.2023 to the Director of Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam. The Petitioner further made an application to the SPIO, Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam in relation to the renovation of the Government quarters. The said application was replied to by the SPIO, Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam vide a communication dated 05.08.2023 wherein it was mentioned that the Directorate/Department had not taken any initiative of repairing the Government quarters as the repairing and renovations are not allowed by the Government vide Finance Department Notification No.FEB.57/2022/6 dated
The court emphasizes the obligation of government establishments to provide reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.
The court ruled that a 100% hearing and speech impaired individual is entitled to exemption from mandatory Tamil language test requirements, emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation unde....
Mandamus directing authorities to consider bunk shop allotment representation of physically challenged person on merits within time frame.
The court emphasized that rigid adherence to recruitment rules without considering reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities violates their rights under the RPwD Act.
Right to shelter does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being.
The court directed relevant authorities to collectively consider and dispose of an application for business space and financial assistance made by an individual with a benchmark disability, ensuring ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.