The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities can adjudicate service matters and disability-related claims, particularly regarding transport allowance entitlements, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to quash the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Case No.13438/ 1024/ 2022 dated 16.05.2023

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent was initially appointed as Pro. Assistant Station Master through Railway Recruitment Board and allotted to Guntakal Division. Subsequently he was absorbed as Temporary Assistant Station Master and he took independent charges in the year 1980. Subsequently, he was promoted to the scale of pay in the year 1991 as Station Master-III. He was transferred to Southern Railway on Inter Railway Mutual transfer on own request as Station Master Grade-III and he joined in Madras Division in the year 2002. He earned promotions to various levels. While he was working as Superintendent, he was declared medically unfit for A-2 category by Medical Board on 14.09.2017 and he was placed in supernumerary post in accordance with Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 duly protecting his pay and pay band. Thereafter he made representation seeking to post him as Chief Law Assistant to the concerned cadre controlling authority for consideration and he was recommended by the Screening Committee for the absorption as Office Superintendent on bottom seniority in Electrical Department vide order dated 24.04.2018. Further, the second respondent did not join the post. His lien is maintained as per extent rule No.122 of IREC on being medically decategorised from the post of Station Superintendent. Thereafter, application was made to provide double rate of transport allowance admissible for persons with disability 3^rd MACP and 4 days SCL. However, the same was rejected and those benefits which were available to the medically disqualified person were granted except the double the rate of transport allowance. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities i.e. first respondent under Section 62 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and the same was allowed in his favour. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present writ petition has been filed on two grounds: (i) whether the first respondent have jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the second respondent relating to the service matters and (ii) whether the second respondent is covered with regard to instructions regarding grant of transport allowance at double the normal rates to the persons with disabilities employed in Central Government.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that it is purely service disputes in between the petitioner and the second respondent. It has to be ventilated only before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the second respondent ventilated his grievance before the first respondent, which is not sustainable one and the first respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the claim strictly in terms of Section 62 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and not relating to service matters. With regard to the second issue whether the person is entitled for grant of transport allowance at double the rate to the normal rate to the persons with disabilities employed in the Central Government and as per clause 1, the categories of the disabilities for the purpose of grant of transport allowance at double the normal rates to the persons with disabilities of blindness, locomotive disability including cerebral palcy, leprosy cured, deaf and dumb, autism spectrum disorder, chronic neurological conditions, blood disorder and multiple disability from amongst the persons under Cl