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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Nethrodaya, Represented by its Founder – Trustee C. Govindakrishnan, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 11065 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 12971 of 2018
Decided On : 19-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:A.M. Venkatakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R5, S. Silambannan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by R. Anitha, Special Government Pleader.

Visually impaired persons were eligible for public and private employment, unlike other differently abled persons who were incapable of employment due to their disabilities. The court directed the government to ensure that no hardship is caused to the visually impaired persons and to consider the request of visually impaired persons who are also ineligible for employment due to other sickness, infirmity, and old age to be treated on par with other differently abled persons receiving the monthly maintenance allowance.

Headnote:

Discrimination - Differently Abled Pensions Scheme - Article 226 - [VISUALLY IMPAIRED] - [Differently Abled Pensions Scheme] - [Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme, Maintenance Allowance Scheme] - The court considered the discrimination between visually impaired and other differently abled persons under the Differently Abled Pensions Scheme. The court found that the visually impaired persons were eligible for public and private employment, unlike other differently abled persons who were incapable of employment due to their disabilities. The court directed the government to ensure that no hardship is caused to the visually impaired persons and to consider the request of visually impaired persons who are also ineligible for employment due to other sickness, infirmity, and old age to be treated on par with other differently abled persons receiving the monthly maintenance allowance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to transfer the administration of the Differently Abled Pensions Scheme to the first and second respondents and to enhance the maintenance allowance for visually challenged beneficiaries from Rs.1000 to Rs.1500 per month, alleging discrimination between visually impaired and other differently abled persons.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that visually impaired persons were eligible for public and private employment, unlike other differently abled persons who were incapable of employment due to their disabilities. The court directed the government to ensure that no hardship is caused to the visually impaired persons and to consider the request of visually impaired persons who are also ineligible for employment due to other sickness, infirmity, and old age to be treated on par with other differently abled persons receiving the monthly maintenance allowance.

Issues: Discrimination between visually impaired and other differently abled persons under the Differently Abled Pensions Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Visually impaired persons were eligible for public and private employment, unlike other differently abled persons who were incapable of employment due to their disabilities. The court directed the government to ensure that no hardship is caused to the visually impaired persons and to consider the request of visually impaired persons who are also ineligible for employment due to other sickness, infirmity, and old age to be treated on par with other differently abled persons receiving the monthly maintenance allowance.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the government to ensure that no hardship is caused to the visually impaired persons and to consider the request of visually impaired persons who are also ineligible for employment due to other sickness, infirmity, and old age to be treated on par with other differently abled persons receiving the monthly maintenance allowance. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third Respondent to hand over the administration of differently abled pensions scheme to Respondents 1 & 2 and consequently directing the Respondents to immediately enhance the maintenance allowance from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- per month to the visually challenged beneficiaries immediately on par with other differently abled beneficiaries.)

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. This Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the third Respondent to handover the administration of Differently Abled Pensions Scheme to the first and second Respondents and consequently, directing the Respondents to enhance the maintenance allowance from Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to the visually challenged beneficiaries on par with other disabled beneficiaries.

2. The Petitioner is an organization working for the welfare of Differently Abled Community, which has taken initiatives to provide quality special education, healthcare and employment opportunities to the visually impaired communities in the State of Tamil Nadu. Their case is that the second Respondent provides maintenance allowance of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) to several Differently Abled Persons with severely affected locomotor, mentally retarded and suffering from leprosy and muscular dystrophy. Their grievance is that the Visually Impaired Persons, who are also severely disabled, are not treated on par with the other severely disabled persons and only a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is paid as monthly pension to the Visually Impaired Persons. Further, the Differently Abled Persons, who suffer from visual impairment, are put to extreme hardship because the Scheme is administered by the Social Welfare Department. They are asked to obtain Certificates of Approval from Village Administrative Officers, Revenue Inspectors and Tahsildar to avail the benefits under this Scheme. Whereas, the other Differently Abled Persons, whose maintenance allowance is handled by the Differently Abled Department, are not put to such hardship. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the State to transfer the Monthly Pension Scheme to the Differently Abled Department and also to treat them on par with other Differently Abled Persons.

3. The Respondents have filed individual Counter Affidavits at various stages of the proceedings. They have also filed Additional Counter Affidavit pursuant to certain interim directions passed by this Court calling for reports as to the steps taken by the Respondents to alleviate the grievance of the Differently Abled Persons, who are visually impaired. Broadly the stand of the Respondents is that:-

(a) the Differently Abled Persons, who are visually impaired, are granted a monthly pension of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). The Scheme has been promoted by the State Government since the State Government found the Scheme of the Union Government called the “Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme” which provided Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred only) as monthly pension was inadequate. The State Government, therefore, sanctioned a sum of Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) in addition to the amount sanctioned by the Central Government and increased the pension amount to Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). The number of persons that are covered under the Central Government Schemes was restricted to 64,045, however, the State Government covered nearly 3,55,897 beneficiaries.

(b) the Differently Abled Persons, who are now given a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) are:

(i) persons with intellectual disability

(ii) severely affected locomotor disabled

(iii) persons affected with muscular dystrophy and

(iv) leprosy cure problems. These categories of persons are ineligible and incapable of public em
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top