Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30152
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Devan Ramachandran, JJ
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SHANTI.K.GEORGE – Respondent
WA/1286/2016
SRI.S.EASWARAN, SRI.N.NAGARESH, SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.), SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
Administrative delays cannot prevent the enforcement of an employee's statutory rights under the PWD Act, necessitating prompt action for eligible promotions.
Headnote:
Promotion - Employment Rights - Persons with Disabilities Act - Section 32, 33 - The court interpreted provisions of the PWD Act, reinforcing the necessity for timely promotion for disabled employees and the obligation to maintain a reservation roster despite administrative delays, leading to a modified directive for the LIC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was denied promotion under the PWD Act despite being eligible since 2001. Following a prior judgment instructing the LIC to consider her case, the LIC rejected her claim, prompting her to challenge this decision in a new writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the delay in the issuance of promotion criteria but emphasized that this should not prevent the petitioner from accessing her rightful promotion. It modified previous orders directing the LIC to evaluate PWD vacancies from 2011-2012 onward.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied promotion under the PWD Act and the implications of the LIC's delay in implementing the Act's provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative delays cannot infringe upon the statutory rights of disabled employees to seek timely promotions, necessitating a revision of vacancy calculations to consider past eligibility.
Final Decision: The appeal was ordered with modifications to accommodate the petitioner’s promotion, contingent upon verifying available vacancies.
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India [for brevity, the LIC], which is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking, has filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.3262 of 2013.
2. The constitutive issues raised in the writ petition, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein as the petitioner, is that she was working as an Assistant in the service of the appellant LIC and that she became eligible for promotion as Higher Grade Assistant as early as in the year 2001. According to her she was denied reservation benefits and was not granted promotion, even though she was eligible to such, under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of W.A. No.1286 of 2016 2 Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995 [herein after referred to as the PWD Act for brevity]. It transpires that she had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.22659 of 2012, which culminated in Ext.P7 judgment dated 08.10.2012, whereby her representation seeking such benefit was directed to be considered by the LIC. The LIC, in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment, passed an order on 13.12.2012, rejecting the petitioner's representation, which has been impugned in the writ petition leading to this appeal.
3. We see that the learned Single Judge, after consideration of all the factual and documentary materials available, allowed the writ petition holding that the delay in issuing a Circular or notification for the post under the PWD Act cannot be a reason to postpone the right of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge had also noticed the specific assertion of the LIC that the petitioner was denied promotion only because the vacancies have not been earmarked. The learned Judge thereafter issued directions to the LIC to “prepare the reservation roster registers starting from the year 1996 and earmark the reservation for persons with W.A. No.1286 of 2016 3 disabilities to be filled by the petitioner and carry forward the same to subsequent recruitment years”. The LIC was directed to prepare the aforementioned registers and to accommodate the petitioner in a vacancy that arose on the date when she became eligible for promotion as Higher Grade Assistant.
4. The appellant has impugned the directions contained in the judgment, called into question in this appeal, on several grounds but primarily on the ground that the provisions of the PWD Act became applicable to the LIC only with effect from the date of Ext.P7 Circular, namely 08.04.2011. They, therefore, say that the directions contained in the judgment impugned in this appeal are erroneous and improper.
5. We have heard Sri.S. Easwaran, the learned counsel appearing for the LIC, Sri.Jaiju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned ASGI appearing for the 2nd respondent.
6. Even though we heard this appeal quite in extenso, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has now made a suggestion to which we will advert to W.A. No.1286 of 2016 4 presently, which according to us would be in the best interest of both sides.
7. Before, that we will record some of the most essential submissions made before us by the counsel on either side. Sri.Jaiju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent admits that his client has been now promoted as a Higher Grade Assistant with effect from 01.03.2013. Sri.S. Easwaran, the learned counsel for LIC, says that this promotion was granted because the LIC had worked out the number of vacancies available for the year 2012-2013 and had found that one such vacancy can be reserved for the PWD category, to which the petitioner can be accommodated. He asserts, in tune with the submissions made by him before the learned Single Judge, that there were no vacancies to be offered to the petitioner or any other candidates under the PWD category for any year prior to
