Madras High Court reinstates conductor citing section 47 of Disabilities Act

Dear Colleagues,

It is little surprising that the corporations, government departments continue to disregard Section 47 of Indian Persons with Disabilities Act  1995 that provides as under:


"47. (1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. 

Provided 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. 

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever 
is earlier. 
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: 
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. "

Despite the clear cut provisions in the Act, Ravichandran, a conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation was declared medically unfit to continue in service by a medical board in 2004 and removed from service, though with an assurance of an alternate employment which was refused later.

The Court reinstated the conductor with back wages from the date of his termination citing Section 47 ibid.

Here is the news coverage.



Conductor sacked over disability, gets back job
TNN | Jan 23, 2013, 06.24 AM IST

CHENNAI: About nine years after a government bus conductor was removed from service on the ground of an unidentified 'disability', the Madras HC has ordered his immediate reinstatement with all salary arrears and service seniority.

Justice D Hariparanthaman, ruling on a petition filed by T M Ravichandran, said: "Any employee who acquires disability during his service is given protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. There is a mandate under the Act that no establishment shall dispense with a staff who acquires a disability during service."

Ravichandran, a conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, was found 'medically unfit' to continue in service by a medical board of the Government General Hospital in Chennai on February 2, 2004. He was removed from service on August 16, 2004, with an assurance that he would be given an alternate employment based on the seniority list. On December 26, 2011, however, the corporation rejected his request for reinstatement, stating that no other suitable post was available.

Rejecting the transport authorities' stand, Justice Hariparanthaman said Section 47 contemplated that if there is no suitable post is available, the person should be kept on a supernumerary post till a vacancy arises or till his superannuation. "There cannot be any gap between the disqualification of an employee due to acquiring disability and adjustment in a suitable post," he said, setting aside the dismissal order. The judge then asked the authorities to reinstate Ravichandran in service within two weeks along with back wages from the date of his termination.

Forcefully retired while on leave, cancer patient granted pension

Dear colleagues,

We have seen in the past that several persons with disabilities have been removed from service by forcing them voluntary retirement on acquiring disabilities in contravention to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

The instant case is of an employee with State Bank of India (Chennai Circle) who was a cancer patient and was forcefully "voluntary retired" while she was on leave undergoing treatment for cancer some 12 year back. The irony is that she continued to fight till 2005 when her gratuity and PF were settled after prolonged representations. However, she was denied her pension and she had to approach the court.

Now after several years of protracted legal battle, the Madras High court has allowed her appeal granting her the pension. Though this is not directly related to a person with disability, however is a good case law in cases where employers take unilateral actions removing employees from service without even informing them. Here is the report.


For cancer patient, a protracted battle for pension is finally won;  Court says voluntary retirement had been forced on the petitioner.

A cancer patient who was ‘voluntarily’ retired by a nationalised bank has won a legal battle for pension with the Madras High Court declaring she is entitled to the benefit.

A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Nagappan and M. Sathyanarayanan granted a declaration on an appeal by Premila Kiruba Augustus. She had joined State Bank of India as a clerk-cum-typist at the Bangalore Main Branch and on her request was transferred to Chennai Circle in January 1981. She was posted as an electronic machine operator from May 1990. When she was on leave for personal reasons, the bank ‘voluntarily retired’ her from service on March 31, 1999. She challenged the order by raising an industrial dispute and after it failed, asked for a reference before the Labour Ministry. This was declined on grounds of a delay. She then made several requests for her pension to be settled. She had completed 25 years of pensionable service. Her gratuity and provident fund were settled in 2005. However, her request for pension was not considered.

Hence, she filed a writ petition. She was not guilty of delay because the bank failed to respond to her representations, it said. She could not pursue her pension claim as her husband underwent a bypass surgery and her father, who was living with her, also underwent a hip replacement surgery and later died. She was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. She sought to declare the bank’s action in not sanctioning pension after retiring her, illegal.

The bank contended that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned her service. Therefore, in terms of a bipartite settlement, she was voluntarily retired from service. Since, she did not make a request seeking voluntary retirement, she could not claim pension.

In June last year, a single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to settle the pensionary benefits. The settlement was to be made depending upon the outcome of another case before the Supreme Court. This case arose out of a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that the settlement in question had undergone a change. Mrs. Augustus and the bank preferred appeals against the single Judge’s order.

The petitioner’s counsel, S. Vaidyanathan, said the case pending before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the facts of the present case. Since the bank itself had voluntarily retired the petitioner from service, it amounted to deemed voluntary retirement. As a corollary, the petitioner was entitled to pension as she had put in the required number of years of pensionable service.

Writing the common judgment for the Bench, Justice M. Sathyanarayanan said considering the facts and circumstances and the Supreme Court’s decision in Syndicate Bank vs Satya Srinath, which was applicable to the present case, it was of the view that voluntary retirement had been forced on the petitioner. The bank’s contention that she had voluntarily abandoned the service could not be sustained.

There was no necessity to await the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Bench allowed her appeal and dismissed the bank’s appeal.

Woman had completed 25 years of bank service;  She had then been ‘voluntarily’ retired;  Court says voluntary retirement had been forced on the petitioner.

Source: The Hindu

Non discrimination, UN CRPD and Disabled Soldiers in India

Dear Friends,

The two most enabling sections of the The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 i.e. section 33 (Employment Chapter) and section 47 (Non Discrimination Chapter) have been made redundant by their disabling proviso which I call as Black proviso i.e.  "Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section."

This black provisio continues in the new draft Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2012  ready to be tabled in the parliament in different sections. The biggest victim of this proviso under Section 47,  have been those brave citizen of this vast nation who risked their lives to preserve the integrity of their motherland while being in defense forces, para-military forces & police departments and acquired disabilities - both minor or severe. The effect of this black proviso has been catastrophic on the morale of those who are out there on the borders to defend the nation or stationed in troubled areas to control the  law and order and save the democracies.

What will happen to me and my family if I become disabled during the course of duty or during my job? Am I being treated like my civilian counter parts when it comes to the social protection or non-discrimination? .... such questions plague the psyche of the ordinary officers of our forces - thanks to the black proviso and the subsequent notification by the Govt. of India under the said proviso declaring the defense forces to be kept out of the ambit of the protections available under this section.

Civilian Employees Versus Combatant Employees

Lets understand how the two employees - one civilian and one from the forces is treated under section 47 of the disabilities Act:

The section mandates as below:

"47. Non-discrimination in Government Employment - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided 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:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.  (most misused proviso)

Now if it was a civilian employee under the government, on acquiring a disability due to any reason, his pay scale and service benefits remain protected even if the disability sustained limits the functional capacities of the person to an extent that he/she can not be adjusted against any existing post. Such a person remains on a supernumerary post until a post is found out or till he attains age of superannuation.

On the contrary, an employee from the forces, on acquiring a disability - whether during the course of duty or during any mishap when not on duty is invariably  medically  boarded out with a paltry disability pension and left to fend for himself in the grim employment scenario. The family members and dependents suffer due to sudden calamity and the person becomes a liability for the family in absence of strong social security provisions. 

Why the talented youth is not attracted to Forces any more

Given an option, any talented young person would prefer a civil employment to an employment in the forces since the forces have not thought to respect for the sacrifices or say the human rights, social security and non-discrimination clauses of the central laws and international human right conventions. The youth of today knows there is no future in the forces. Worst - in case of a mishap - death or disability is inevitable. And both  will take away the bread winner of the family with no social protections.

Need to think out of box in light of UN CRPD

We as a nation has to think what we offer to our sons and daughters  who risk their lives for the country in comparison to a civilian on duty. Also we have to walk the talk since India is among first few handful countries  who signed the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the very first day of its opening for signature and subsequently ratified the same. However, we continue to discriminate on the basis of disability when it comes to government employment in forces.

The UN Convention defines "Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;

Some possibilities worth considering

Not all jobs in the forces are of combatant nature and many involve desk jobs such administration, logistics, equipment, stores, purchase and several others. This means that the exemption given under the garb of black proviso, can be easily withdrawn and combatants acquiring disabilities can be adjusted in non-combatant jobs/branches. 

If the Government feels that it may compromise with the war preparedness of the forces, it may also consider keeping all such severely disabled combatant employees on supernumerary posts with full pay scale and other benefits. While those who are with disabilities that allow sufficient functional abilities to be gainfully occupied in the desk operations, should be accommodated in the base units/formations.

This can help fill up the huge shortfall in the forces by motivating the youth and assuring them that they would not be discriminated if they become disabled while in service- whether the injury was or not attributable to service.

This would ensure that our forces do not discriminate on the basis of disability and are in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There have been several examples in the defence forces where combatants who acquired disability during action were retained and such a trend is very good, however, one should not be forced to go to Armed Forces Tribunal each time to obtain right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law (Art 14 of the Constitution) and Article 5 (equality and non-discrimination) of the UNCRPD.

We don't need to wait for the new draft law to come in to being to enforce this and it can be simply done by withdrawing the "Black Proviso" and the Notification of Exemption accordingly encapsulating the above.

Court rules severely disabled woman wasn't raped because she didn't 'bite, kick or scratch' her assailant

This outrageous judgement from Connecticut State Supreme Court is only going to encourage crimes against disabled women! This indicates the prejudices, negative attitudes, lack of awareness about the disabling conditions that many of us live with in the community, especially among certain sections of the judiciary!

Court Rules Severely Disabled Woman Wasn't Raped Because She Didn't 'Bite, Kick or Scratch' Her Assailant

October 3, 2012    

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court  overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court  ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:

When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), lack of physical resistance  is not evidence of consent , as “many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent.” RAINN also notes that lack of consent is implicit “if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect” as the victim did in this case.

Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services,  worried that the Court’s interpretation of the law ignored these concerns: “By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases. Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.” An amicus brief filed by the Connecticut advocates for disabled persons  argued that this higher standard “discourag[ed] the prosecution of crimes against persons with disabilities” even though “persons with a disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more than twice the rate for persons without a disability.”

Source: www.alternet.org 

Court of CCPD issues notices to Department of Disability Affairs, GOI

Dear Colleagues,

Even after more than 16 years of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, there is no Uniform Guideline for availing scribes and writers by the persons with Low Vision and Blindness. The candidates continue to suffer in absence of such guidelines and are often on the mercy of the institution/ departments  both in the matter of studies as well as employment.

A recent PIL by the undersigned against ICAI for putting forth unreasonable guidelines for blind students was just an example in the recent past of such hardships faced by the visually impaired students/persons. Please see my earlier posts dated 26 April 2012 and 02 May 2012 on the subject. The court did solve the problem with its pro-active Order the same day for visually impaired students of ICAI but how many students and how many times will be able to afford going to knock the doors of judiciary?

In the year 2005, All India Confederation of Blind had also drafted a detailed guideline for the scribe highlighting the issues and shared with the Chief Commissioner Disabilities and the  concerned Ministry. This was also discussed during the annual meeting of the State Commissioner's Disabilities in subsequent year. However, it remained pending for a long time due to inaction of the then Disability Division (now Department of Disability Affairs).

Through a consultative process lead by Score Foundation, over 70 organisations working with the Persons with disabilities in India (especially Low Vision and Blind) to which I have been a party myself, had suggested an exhaustive document titled "Uniform Guidelines for Conducting Examinations (Practicals and/or Theory) for Blind and Low Vision Persons" and sent to  of Social Justice & Empowerment for their acceptance. However, it seems the Ministry has some other priorities than the every day sufferings of the stakeholders for which it exists.

The Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is the nodal department to coordinate the implementation of the Disabilities Act but have not acted on the issue in the interest of justice to alleviate the hardships of the stakeholders and sitting over the above guidelines for a pretty long time leading to untold miseries and hardships to the stakeholders.

In an unprecedented manner, the Court of Chief Commissioner Disabilities has issued notice to the sister department i.e. Department of Disability Affairs, under the same Ministry and sought explanation in the following unequivocal words:

"Take this show cause notice and explain as to why the Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt, of India, should not be directed to finalise, issue & circulate to all concerned comprehensive and uniform guidelines/norms for conduct of all examinations (both academic & recruitment related) as soon as may be keeping in mind, among other things, the suggestions of the complainants; and, pending finalisation, issuance and circulation of such comprehensive guidelines/norms, to circulate to all concerned the proposed guidelines/norms submitted by Score Foundation vide their letter dated 06.06.2012 for persons with blindness and persons with low vision and evolved by several organisations including Score Foundation on or before 20.10.2012 under intimation to this Court. The respondent department's reply should also explain reasons for the inordinate delay in finalisation, issuance and circulation of such comprehensive and uniform guidelines/norms for all persons with disabilities.

The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has further directed the respondent Department to appear before the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in person or through a representative (not below the level of Group 'A (Class-l officer) or a counsel well versed with the case and with all the related documents on 02/11/2012 at 3.00 p.m. to present the case unless uniform and comprehensive policy for conduct of all kinds of examinations for all persons with disabilities is duly finalised and notified before that date."

To read/download the Show Cause Notice click here.

I congratulate Mr. PK Pincha, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India for rising up to the expectations in discharge of his constitutional duties under the law. I am hopeful that the officials of the Disability Division will not take it as an adversorial litigation like many other cases in which they keep defending the Ministry's (in)actions in the Delhi High Court and other forums- issue of sign language interpreter being just one odd example that is being contested by the Ministry for over two years now at the Government's expense!

It is an apathy on the part of the Ministry that the stakeholders- the persons with disabilities continue to suffer and it has to defend cases due to its in-actions in various courts and now face this show cause from a constitutional authority like CCPD. Hope the Department of Disability Affairs will notify the guideline without any delay before the next date of hearing in the court of CCPD i.e. 02nd November 2012.

regards

Adv Subhash C Vashishth