Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 81 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-01-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 22.4.1980 in the Police Department. He lost his vision in both the eyes while posted in Lahaul-Spiti District. He was examined by the Medical Board to assess his suitability for retention in the Department. The Medical Board vide order dated 30.7.2002 opined that the petitioner was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. Consequently, he was retired on 3.8.2002. He made a representation on the basis of which petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 19.5.2008. He resumed his duties on 27.5.2008. He was promoted as A.S.I. on 24.2.2010. 2. Mr. N.K. Gupta has vehemently argued that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted and the case of the petitioner has not been considered for further promotion. He has referred to section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity sake). 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner has not qualified the lower, inter and upper school courses, he could not be promoted. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioner lost his eye sight while posted in Lauhal-Spiti District. He was retired without taking into consideration the provisions of the Act. He was reinstated on 19.5.2008. He joined his duties on 27.5.2008. He will be deemed to be in continue service from 22.4.1980 and his case was required to be considered for promotion as per sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act. It is clearly stipulated in sub-section 2 of section 47 that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability. Since the petitioner has lost his eye vision in both the eyes, he could not qualify the lower, inter and upper school courses prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules. His case was required to be considered for further promotion as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act. It is a fit case where principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia would apply. His case was required to be considered for further promotion as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act. It is a fit case where principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia would apply. Since the petitioner could not qualify the lower inter and upper school courses, the same ought to have been exempted qua him under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Police Rules. Petitioner has been promoted as A.S.I. on 24.2.2010. Persons junior to him have been promoted to the higher posts. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh versus Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 524 have held that employee of an establishment, which was not exempted from section 47, acquiring disability during service and getting incapacitated is covered under section 47 (i) (v) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Their Lordships have further held that the protection is mandatorily available to an employee acquiring disability during his service and the same could not be denied on the ground that he has been granted invalid pension under section 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Their Lordships have held as under: “1. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Special Service Bureau (for short 'the SSB'). When he was on duty, he suffered an injury in his left leg. The medical aid given to him did not help. Ultimately, his left leg was amputated on account of gangrene which had developed from the injury. He was invalidated from service by the respondents on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, Kullu under which he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service as per order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB Shamshi (Kullu). He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he would discharge keeping in view the extent of his disability and having due regard to 17 years of his unblemished service. He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity and correctness of the said order on the ground that it was arbitrary and that he could have been assigned with alternative duty which he would discharge keeping in view the extent of his disability and having due regard to 17 years of his unblemished service. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that he had been permanently invalidated on the basis of the medical opinion and as such there was no scope for him to continue any further in service of any kind in the SSB. Hence, this appeal is filed assailing the impugned order. It appears, before the High Court, no argument was advanced specifically in support of the writ petition on the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act). However, a specific ground is raised in this appeal based on Section 47 of the Act. Since it is a pure question of law, we have heard learned counsel for the parties or the contentions including the one based or Section 47 of the Act. 7. From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the disability suffered by the appellant is covered by Section 2(i)(v) read with Section 2(o) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that this disability was acquired by the appellant during his service. Under Section 2 "disability" and "person with disability" are separately defined and they are distinct. We may also notice some provisions in Chapter VI of the Act relating to employment. Section 32 deals with identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. Section 33 speaks of reservation of such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision: (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Section 38 requires the appropriate Governments and local authorities to formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. Section 47 is included in Chapter VIII of the Act. Chapter VI deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities including identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for such persons. Section 38 requires the appropriate Governments and local authorities to formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities. Section 47 is included in Chapter VIII of the Act. Chapter VI deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities including identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for such persons. Under this Chapter, reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities is made for initial appointments. Section 47 in Chapter VIII deals with an employee of an establishment who acquires a disability during his service. 8. The need for a comprehensive legislation for safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling them to enjoy equal opportunities and to help them to fully participate in national life was felt for a long time. To realize objective that people with disabilities should have equal opportunities and keeping their hopes and aspirations in view a meeting called the 'Meet to Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons' was held in Beijing in the first week of December, 1992 by the Asian and Pacific countries to ensure 'full participation and equality of people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions'. This Meeting was held by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific. A Proclamation was adopted in the said meeting. India was a signatory to the said proclamation and they agreed to give effect to the same. Pursuant thereto this Act was enacted, which came into force on 1st January, 1996. The Act provides some sort of succor to the disabled persons. 9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47, which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of "dis- ability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a word/ expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service". The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. 12. Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. 12. Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under Section 47 of the Act. Once it is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits: if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was avail able or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service without considering the effect of other provisions of Section 47 of the Act.” 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579 have criticized the approach of the Punjab State Electricity Board for its highly insensitive and apathetic attitude. In this case the appellant became blind and he remained absent from 18.1.1994 to 21.3.1997. He had requested for his retirement vide letter dated 17.7.1996. He was retired vide order dated 14.12.1999. He wanted to withdraw his request of his retirement when he came to know that he was entitled to protection under the Act. The request for withdrawal was turned down by the Departmental authorities. In these circumstances, their Lordships have held as under: “2. This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harboured by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of the case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of appellant No.1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous. 18. Appellant No.1 was a Class IV employee, a Lineman. He completely lost his vision. The facts of the case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of appellant No.1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous. 18. Appellant No.1 was a Class IV employee, a Lineman. He completely lost his vision. He was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness would cause him to lose his job, the source of livelihood of his family. The enormous mental pressure under which he would have been at that time is not difficult to imagine. In those circumstances it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Instead of doing that they threw him out of service by picking up a sentence from his letter, completely out of context. The action of the concerned officers of the Board, to our mind, was deprecable. 19. We understand that the concerned officers were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mind-set it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful rights of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the officers failed to realize that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country. 20. In light of the discussions made above, the action of the Board in terminating the service of the disabled employee (appellant No.1) with effect from March 21, 1997 must be held to be bad and illegal. What the law permits to them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country. 20. In light of the discussions made above, the action of the Board in terminating the service of the disabled employee (appellant No.1) with effect from March 21, 1997 must be held to be bad and illegal. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, the appellant must be deemed to be in service and he would be entitled to all service benefits including annual increments and promotions etc. till the date of his retirement. The amount of terminal benefits paid to him should be adjusted against the amount of his salary from March 22, 1997 till date. If any balance remains, that should be adjusted in easy monthly installments from his future salary. The appellant shall continue in service till his date of superannuation according to the service records. He should be reinstated and all due payments, after adjustments as directed, should be made to him within six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment before the Secretary of the Board.” 8. The Apex Court in Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri versus Nazir Ahmed Shah and others, (2010) 3 SCC 603 have held that the purpose of the Act is to enable the disabled/physically challenged persons to lead a life of purpose and human dignity. Their Lordships have granted petitioner consequential benefits with continuity in service with all notional benefits since he was disengaged wrongfully. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of India through Secretary and another versus Ravi Prakash Gupta and another, (2010) 7 SCC 626 have held that object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is to (i) integrate persons with disabilities into the social mainstream (ii) lay down a strategy for comprehensive development and programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities and for their education, training, employment and rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities, (iii) give effect to proclamation on full participation and equality of people with disabilities in Asian and Pacific regions. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher posts from the date his juniors have been considered, with all the consequential benefits, within a period of three months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.