Back
2003 Supreme(UK) 227
2004 (1) UC 513
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
HON'BLE RAJESH TANDON, J.
Madan Mohan Mamgain
versus
Chief Engineer (Distribution) Electricity Power Corporation and another
W.P. No. 170 of 2001 (SS)
Decided on : 21.10.2003
Sri Ram Ji Srivastava for Petitioner Sri Ashish Joshi and Vijai Kumar for Respondents
Employers are obligated to protect employees acquiring disabilities during service and provide equal opportunities, as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Section 47.
Headnote:
Disability Rights - Employment - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 47
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Electricity Board, suffered a disabling accident while on duty. He was subsequently denied promotion and faced termination due to his disability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's rights under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, specifically Section 47, were violated by the employer's actions. The court held that the employer cannot terminate or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service.
Issues: Violation of disability rights, denial of promotion, and termination based on disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the mandatory nature of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which prohibits the termination or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service. The court emphasized the statutory obligation on the employer to protect employees with disabilities and provide equal opportunities.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of termination and directed the petitioner to receive his salary and all other service benefits according to rules.
RAJESH TANDON, J.: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2000 passed by respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a permanent employee of Electricity Board, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. While he was on duty he met with an accident on 26th July, 1996 in . village Kaparh District Pauri Garhwal when he was repairing some fault in the electricity poll. The petitioner has lost his both the legs. He was admitted to District Hospital, Pauri Garhwal and on medical advise he was shifted to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi from where he was discharged on 10th September, 1996. The petitioner further joined his duty on 3rd September, 1997.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his four colleagues who were junior to him were given promotion on the post of Sub-Station Officer while the petitioner has not been given promotion.
5. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 41962 of 2000 before the• Allahabad High Court and on 28th September, 2000, Allahabad High Court has directed the petitioner to submit his representation before the appropriate authority and he may decide the same within three months. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
6. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to file afresh representation before the concerned authority alongwith a certified copy of this judgment and complete copy of writ petition within six weeks from today and if a representation is being made within the time stipulated above, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority by passing a reasoned order preferably within a period of three months of receipt of the representation. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner apart from any other mode, by registered post also immediately on passing orders on the representation.
7. The concerned authority shall decide the matter exercising its unfettered discretion on the basis of the record before it without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this judgment.
8. According to the petitioner he has submitted his representation on 1.11.2000 but the respondent No.2 became annoyed with the petitioner and in an arbitrary manner he rejected the representation of the petitioner on, 7.12.2000. On very next day i.e. 8.12.2000 respondent issued three months notice to the petitioner to quit from service. Relevant part of the notice is quoted below:
9. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by way of the present writ petition.
10. On 3.3.2001 this Court has passed the following order:
"Notice has been accepted by 'he learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties. He prays for and is allowed to file counter affidavit within three weeks. List after three weeks.
In the meantime the operation of order dated 8.12.2000 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition shall remain stayed.
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner is still continuing on the post.
12. In the counter affidavit respondents have stated that the petitioner is 100% handicapped and is not in a position to hold any post.
13. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that he is able to do table work. The respondents have no power under U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulation, 1975 to retire the petitioner until he completes 20 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age.
14. Right to live with dignity has been held to be a fundamental right as contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 protects the dignity of the persons. .
15. In the Case Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697. the Apex Court has relied upon the judgment in Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC land Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 and has observed human condition
