JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.08.2008, passed by the Court of Commissioner (For Disabled Persons), Gandhinagar under Section 60(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the Act of 1995). 2. Learned AGP, Mr.Soni has submitted that the Court of Commissioner has not properly considered the provisions of the Act of 1995. He has stated that under Section 62 of the Act, 1995, the Commissioner cannot straightway issue direction directing the authorities to confer the benefits of the pay scale of higher secondary from the date of appointment to the respondent. 3. Further, learned AGP, Mr.Soni has stated that the Commissioner does not have the powers to grant the higher pay scale after completion of 9 years service on the basis of the pay scale of higher secondary. He has stated that the Court of Commissioner under the Act of 1995, can only remand the matter to said authority about action to be taken under Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the said Act, however, in the present case the Commissioner has straightway directed the authorities to grant such benefits to the respondent. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Joshi has stated that the order passed by the Court of Commissioner is justified as the powers have been conferred under Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Act of 1995, for grant of any relief to the persons having disabilities. He said that denial of the pay scale to the petitioner is one of the such benefit which can be conferred by the Court of Commissioner to the persons with disabilities and accordingly the Court of Commissioner is justified in issuing such direction. 5. The core question of law in the present writ petition is that whether the Court of Commissioner (for Disabled Persons) has powers to issue a direction directing the Government or the Legal Authority to confer the benefits to the persons with disabilities. 6. 5. The core question of law in the present writ petition is that whether the Court of Commissioner (for Disabled Persons) has powers to issue a direction directing the Government or the Legal Authority to confer the benefits to the persons with disabilities. 6. It would be apposite to refer to Section 62 of the Act of 1995, which reads as under : “Section 62 : Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 61 the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints with respect to matters relating to – (a) deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities; (b) non-implementation of law, rules, byelaws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Government and the local authorities for the welfare the protection of rights of persons with disabilities, and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities.” 7. What follows from the bare reading of Section 62 of the Act of 1995 is that the Commissioner can look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and non-implementation of laws, rules, byelaws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare the protection of rights of persons with disabilities as suggested in sub clause (b) of Section 62 of the Act of 1995. 8. It is pertinent to note that Section 62 of the Act of 1995 envisages action to be taken by the Commissioner with respect to the matters which he only can take up with the guidelines or instructions made or issued by the authorities. Thus, if the Court of Commissioner finds that a person with disability is deprived of any right because of non-implementation of laws, byelaws etc. in that case he has to take up the matter with the appropriate authorities. 9. In the present case, the Court of Commissioner instead of recommending and pointing out the deprivation of right of the respondent qua his pay scale to the appropriate authorities (i.e. present petitioners) has straightway directed the petitioners to confer the benefits of the higher pay scale to the respondent. 9. In the present case, the Court of Commissioner instead of recommending and pointing out the deprivation of right of the respondent qua his pay scale to the appropriate authorities (i.e. present petitioners) has straightway directed the petitioners to confer the benefits of the higher pay scale to the respondent. In my considered opinion, such direction could not have been issued by the Court of Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act of 1995 as the Commissioner has to only identify the lacuna / deprivation of the right of the respondent and to take up such matters and point out such deprivation of the right to the appropriate State Government authorities. 10. The Section 63 of the Act of 1995 provides that the Commissioner has certain powers of Civil Court for the purpose of discharging their functions under the Act – (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits. Such powers would govern the procedural aspect while entertaining complaints of persons with disability. As per Section 63(2) of the Act of 1995, such proceeding is to be considered as a judicial proceeding. 11. Section 61 of the Act of 1995 lays down powers of the Commissioner, which reads as under: “Section. 61 Powers of the Commissioner :- The Commissioner within the State shall - (a) coordinate with the departments of the State Government for the programmes and schemes for the benefits of persons with disabilities (b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government, (c) take step to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities; (d) submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as that Government may prescribed and forward a copy thereof to the Chief Commissioner.” 12. Accordingly, the Commissioner has the power to coordinate with the departments of the State Government monitor the utilization of funds disbursed by the State Government and to take step to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities and accordingly submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of rights. Accordingly, the Commissioner has the power to coordinate with the departments of the State Government monitor the utilization of funds disbursed by the State Government and to take step to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities and accordingly submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of rights. Thus, conspectus of the aforesaid sections will suggest that the Commissioner, after following the appropriate procedure as envisaged in such Sections, can recommend to the appropriate authorities about the action to be taken in the cases of the persons with disabilities who are deprived of any rights because of non-implementation of laws, rights, byelaws etc. 13. I would like to gainfully extract the observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus G.Sarvothaman reported in 2013 (10) SCC 489 . The Apex Court has observed thus: “The Chief Commissioner under Section 59 of the Act of 1995 has got only the power to examine the matters relating to "deprivation of rights" of persons with disabilities. The Commissioner can only examine whether the persons with disabilities have been deprived of any "rights" for which the Commissioner has to first examine whether the complainant has any "rights" under the laws. The Commissioner cannot confer or create any right for the Appellants.” 14. In light of the foregoing observations of the Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, the Commissioner ought to have recommended the case of the respondent for the higher pay scale after considering all the aspects instead of directing the petitioner authorities to grant the benefits to the respondent. 15. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 25.08.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside, however, the observation made in the said order qua denial of the benefits of the higher secondary pay scale, to the present respondent is to be treated as recommendatory to the State Government. The present petitioners are hereby directed to consider the case of respondent for grant of such benefits in light of the observations made in the order dated 25.08.2008. Thus, only the direction directing the present petitioners by the Court of Commissioner for grant of the benefits is quashed and set aside and instead of it is observed that the case of the respondent herein shall be considered as per the observations made in the said order. Thus, only the direction directing the present petitioners by the Court of Commissioner for grant of the benefits is quashed and set aside and instead of it is observed that the case of the respondent herein shall be considered as per the observations made in the said order. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the pay scale to the respondent. 16. The petitioner no.3 is hereby directed to consider the case of respondent for granting all benefits of pay scale of the higher secondary. The petitioner no.3 shall offer an opportunity of hearing to the present respondent and after hearing him, necessary order shall be passed to that effect. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months. Petitioner no.3 shall inform the present respondent the date and time for remaining present within a period of two weeks and necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month thereafter. 17. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made to the aforesaid extent.