IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
V.K. Sharma, J.
Shri Lokesh - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents
CWP No. 5531of 2010-F
Decided On : 10.01.2013
Persons with Disabilities - Regular Appointment - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 33, Article 27 para 1(a) to (c) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought implementation of an order for regular appointment and consequential benefits under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The respondents argued that the Act does not mandatorily provide for regular employment for persons with disabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Act does not mandatorily provide for regular employment for persons with disabilities and that the State Government was making appointments on a daily wage/contract basis without discrimination.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Act mandated regular employment for persons with disabilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act does not mandatorily provide for regular employment for persons with disabilities and that the State Government was making appointments on a daily wage/contract basis without discrimination.
Final Decision: The petition and pending application were disposed of, and the benefit of a previous judgment was extended to the petitioners without discrimination.
V.K. Sharma, J.
The petition has been filed on the following substantive
prayers:
“i) That the order dated July 2, 2008 Annexure P-8 passed by Commissioner Disabilities may very kindly be ordered to be implemented.
ii) That the respondents may kindly be ordered to offer regular appointment from the date of their appointment 2004 with all consequential benefits.
iii) That the respondents may be directed to implement the persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, in letter and spirit.”
2. In reply on behalf of respondent No. 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 of the preliminary submissions and para 11 on merits:
Preliminary Submissions:
………….
“3. That the petitioners had filed joint appeal petition under Section 61 read with Sections 62 and 63 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 before the court of respondent No. 3 i.e. Pr. Secretary Social Justice & Empowerment-cum-Commissioner (Disabilities) H.P. on 6.4.2008 who had decided the same on 2.7.2008 by giving directions to Education Department to take necessary action by placing the matter before the competent authority as early as possible but not later than 60 days from today for regularization of the petitioners from the date of the decision of the competent authority. The action was required to be taken by the respondents No. 2 & 4 but no such action was taken by them therefore, the petitioners filed an Execution Petition on 9-12-2008 before the Hon’ble Court of Commissioner (Disabilities). A show Cause notice was issued on 23-1-2009 to respondent No. 4 to explain their position within the period of 15 days personally. Instead of filing the reply to the Show Cause Notice respondent no. 4 filed a review petition on 18-11-2009 alongwith request for condonation of delay of 477 days in filing the review petition. The then Pr. Secretary (SJ&E) to the Govt. of HP-cum-Commissioner (Disabilities) H.P. on 17.4.10 dismissed the review petition for want of maintainability. The issue of regularization of the Persons with Disabilities has been considered by the State Govt. afresh in the light of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and it has been held that the Act in question do not mandatorily provide for appointment on regular basis only. All concerned have been informed accordingly on 6-8-2010 and respondents No. 2 & 4 have been conveyed separately on 6-8-2010. Instead of taking action on the basis of these instructions, the Education Department through Principal Secretary (Edu.) has filed another review petition before the Hon’ble Court of Commissioner (Disabilities) on 16-8-2010 for reviewing the decision dated 2-7-2008 and 17-4-2010. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that neither in Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 nor under Sections 114 & 151 CPC there is any provision of reviewing the decisions at the level of Commissioner Disabilities hence the matter may kindly be decided by the Hon’ble High Court on merit basis.
On merits: ………….
11. That with regard to the grounds of filing present CWP mentioned at sub paras (i) to (x), it is submitted that the petitioners have been provided employment as per provisions contained in the PWD Act, 1995 and no violation of the provisions of the Act and International Convention of Protection of Rights of the Disabled has been made. It is pertinent to mention here that in Section 33 of the PWD Act, 1995 and in Article 27 para 1(a) to (c) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities there is a mention of providing employment to the Persons with Disabilities but there is no mandatory provision of regular employment. Further, with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners it is submitted that State Govt. has considered the issue regularization of the PWDs in acco
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.