Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules On Rights For Employees With Benchmark Disabilities
In a significant ruling regarding the employment rights of persons with disabilities, the has clarified the scope of . Presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, the court determined that the provision allowing for the creation of supernumerary posts is strictly reserved for employees who acquire a disability during their active government service.
The Dispute at Hand
The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired District Inspector, had approached the court seeking a to be transferred to Rampur. Citing personal hardship and the medical needs of his visually impaired wife, he argued that the government was obligated under the RPwD Act to create a at his desired location. The State, however, contested this, asserting that no such post existed at the requested station and that the law did not mandate the creation of specific positions simply to accommodate transfer requests.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner relied heavily on Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, suggesting that the state should create a supernumerary position to facilitate his transfer to a more conducive environment. The petitioner argued that his family circumstances and his status as a necessitated this special accommodation.
The , represented by the Deputy Advocate General, highlighted that the petitioner had been recruited specifically under the quota reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. Consequently, the State argued that the petitioner was already employed in a capacity recognized by his disability status at the time of entry, and the protective mechanism for those who subsequently acquire disabilities was not applicable. Furthermore, the State noted that while they remained open to adjusting the petitioner in stations where a was available, creating a new post at a location where none existed was administratively unfeasible and legally unsupported.
Legal Analysis and Interpretation
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel undertook a rigorous examination of the RPwD Act, 2016. The court clarified that Section 20(4) is intended to protect employees who, while already in service, suffer an injury or illness resulting in a disability. The legislature’s intent in providing the "" safety net was to ensure that such individuals do not lose their livelihood or rank due to an unexpected change in their physical capacity.
The Court distinguished between an employee hired through a and one who acquires a disability during their tenure. It concluded that the petitioner, having been hired as a person with a disability, did not fall under the specific protection mechanism meant to mitigate the impact of mid-career disability.
Key Observations
Highlighting the misinterpretation of the law, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted:
-
"A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 demonstrates that this sub-section comes into picture only when an employee acquires a disability during service."
-
"This sub-section is not at all attracted in the facts of the present case, because the petitioner was appointed in service on account of him being a person with disability."
-
"The scheme of the RPwD Act, 2016 does not provide for creation of any for adjustment of a person with disability who is appointed in his or her capacity as such."
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the , ruling that no can be issued to the State to create a post where none exists. The court affirmed that the petitioner’s reliance on Section 20(4) was based on a fundamental misreading of the statutory provision. While the petition was rejected, the court empathetically observed that if the petitioner requests an adjustment to any station where a sanctioned vacancy for a District Inspector/District Audit Officer currently exists, the authorities should consider such a request with sympathy.
