SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 100

High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
S. Sandira
Versus
The Chairman, Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE) & Others
W.P.No.22351 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
Decided on : 07-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M/s. Kavitha Deenadayalan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 & R2 - T.P. Manoharan, R3 – Karthik, Advocates.

The provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act should be interpreted to advance the object of giving equality to disabled persons with others. Guidelines do not confer an enforceable right to resist transfer.

Headnote:

Transfer - Protection of Rights for Physically Handicapped Employee - The petitioner, a physically disabled person, challenged a transfer order on the ground of moderate hearing impairment. The court discussed the definition of disability, the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, and relevant case law. The court held that the transfer did not cause hardship to the petitioner and the guidelines did not confer an enforceable right to resist transfer.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically disabled person with moderate hearing impairment, challenged a transfer order on the ground of disability. The court directed a medical examination to assess the disability of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disability suffered by the petitioner did not cause inconvenience in performing duties at different places of posting. The court held that the guidelines did not confer an enforceable right to resist transfer.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of disability provisions, the protection of rights for physically handicapped employees, and the enforceability of guidelines in resisting transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act should be interpreted to advance the object of giving equality to disabled persons with others. The guidelines did not confer an enforceable right to resist transfer.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.09.2010, vide which, the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic College, Yanam. The transfer has been ordered on the request of the third respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that she is a physically disabled person due to moderate hearing impairment from her childhood. In the year 1985, she got herself examined by the Government Medical Officer, Puducherry, where she was found to be deaf as per the definition mentioned in the National Employment Service Manual, which defines deaf as follows:-

"The deaf are those in whom the sense of hearing is non-functional for ordinary purposes of life. They do not hear understand sounds at all events having hearing loss more than 90 decibels in the better ear (profound impairment) or total loss of hearing in both ears."

2. Though the petitioner was physically disabled person, her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the PIPMATE in the year 1990 against general category for the post of Library Attender. She was selected and joined the post by availing age concession applicable to disabled persons.

3. The petitioner submits that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, (Law Division) vide their letter having Ref.F.No.10/46/94-LD/NHRC, dated 14.03.1995 forwarded its recommendations to the State of Puducherry to notify the guidelines to improve the service conditions of the disabled/physically handicapped employees working in different sectors. The recommendation were accepted by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.23/97-West (Sw.II), dated 04.03.1997 was issued by the Government of Puducherry.

4. Clause 15 of the Government Order reads as under:-

"15. The disabled/Physically handicapped employees shall be posted in/transferred to an office nearer to his/her residence or in a place of his/her choice, even by transferring the normal persons, if vacancy is not available."

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was that as the petitioner is a disabled person, she is entitled to the protection of Government Order referred to above and that the transfer order is liable to be set aside.

6. In order to ascertain the disability of the petitioner, this Court directed the Chief Medical officer, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry, to constitute a medical board for assessing the medical disability of the petitioner. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was medical examined, and on the basis of medical test, Medical Board certified as under:-

CERTIFICATE

"Certified that Thiru/Tmt. Sandira, working as Librarian in the Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (PIPMATE), Lawspet, Puducherry, has appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2010 and we members of the Medical Board are of the opinion that NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT HEARING HANDICAPS MODERATE HEARING IMPAIRMENT, II(a)."

7. The disability pointed out on the petitioner is as under:-

Category Type of DB level Speech Percentage

Impairment discrimination of

impairment

II (a) Moderate 41 to 60 50 to 80% in 40 % to

hearing dB in better ear 50%

impairment better ear

Thus the petitioner does not fall within the definition of deaf as given in National Employment Service Manual.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Clause 15 of the Government Order issued by the Government to regulate the service conditions of the handicapped person also, referred to Section 2(i) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which reads as under:-

"2(i) "disability" means -

(i) blindness;

(ii) low vision;

(iii) leprosy-cured;

(iv) hearing impairment

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) mental retardation;

(viii) mental illness;"



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top