Allahabad High Court Directs Sensitisation Of UPSRTC Officers Towards Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Under PwD Act

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, to ensure that all officers are sensitised towards the rights of persons with disabilities guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.While dealing with a case of an employee who was denied any post after suffering from disability while working with the Corporation, Justice Ajay Bhanot held:“The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow shall ensure that all officers are duly sensitized to the rights of persons with disabilities under the Disabilities Act and the legislative intent of the Disabilities Act is brought to fruition by faithful implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent Corporation.”The Court issued directions regarding training and regular audits by competent authorities to ensure implementation of the Act of 2016. While working for UPSRTC, the petitioner suffered certain disabilities. He represented before the authority to allot him light duty, expressing his inability to do rigorous work. A medical board constituted by CMO, Hamirpur which opined that petitioner suffered from 40% permanent disability in relation to Left Arm, Left Leg as per the guidelines (Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under the RPwD Act, 2016 notified by Government of India vide S.O. 76(E) dated 04/01/2018).However, the CMO in his letter to the corporation wrote that the disability was temporary and curable, but the petitioner should be allotted light work. Petitioner was again subjected to a medical board in Lucknow, where the CMO reiterated the disability and need for lighter work for the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not being allotted work, he approached the High Court for a decision on his application. After the order by the High Court to decide the application, the same was rejected by UPSRTC. Against this rejection, the petitioner again approached the High Court. As an interim measure, the Court had directed that another medical board be constituted and the petitioner's medical examination be done. A medical board from King George's Medical University, Lucknow, gave the same opinion as previous medical boards. The Court noted that Section 20 of the Act of 2016 prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in government establishments. Section 21 of the Act directs such establishments to make policies for the implementation of the provisions of the Act, and Section 33 makes it mandatory for the government to identify and create posts for persons which benchmark disabilities. “Section 33 of the Disabilities Act pivots the implementation of the said enactment in the respondent Corporation. The process under Section 33 contemplates that the identified post aligns with the respective disability in a manner that holder of the post can discharge the duties attached to the post without being impeded by the disability.”The Court further observed that:“When the respective disability ceases to be a factor in the efficient execution of the identified post, the person with disability realizes his/her true potentialities and the legislative object of the Disabilities Act is fully realized. The said identification of posts for persons with disabilities is indispensable for the creation of a discrimination free work environment for persons with disabilities.”The Court held that failure to identify such posts will have a cascading effect as it not only leads to violation of mandatory provision (Section 33) but also discrimination against persons with disabilities and violation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. Observing that the locomotor disability, which the petitioner suffered from, was part of the Schedule of the Act, the Court held that there was no application of mind by the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner's application. “As discussed earlier an imperative duty is cast upon the respondents to identify posts to be held by respective categories of persons with disabilities. The rights of persons with disabilities cannot be transgressed on account of the failure of the respondent authorities to comply with the said provisions of the Disabilities Act. The respondent authorities cannot take advantage of their omissions to deny rights vested in the petitioner by law.”Accordingly, the Court directed the Corporation to give light duties to the petitioner and pay arrears of salary which were due with interest of 7%. It was also directed that if the Corporation failed to pay the arrears within 4 months from the date of receipt of the order, an additional penalty of Rs. 50,000 shall be paid to the petitioner. Case Title: Muhammad Naeem v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [WRIT - A No. - 18224 of 2024]Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 248Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Directs Sensitisation Of UPSRTC Officers Towards Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Under PwD Act

Upasna Agrawal

Tags