Govt Must Give Reasons For Not Accepting Recommendations Of Chief Commissioner Of Persons With Disabilities: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that recommendations of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) have to be generally followed by the government authorities.

A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain however added that the concerned authority may, for valid reasons, refuse to follow the same.

“In such circumstance, convey the reason of non-acceptance to the CCPwD and also to the aggrieved person so that the aggrieved person may avail his/her remedy, as has been done by the petitioner in the present case,” the Court directed the government.

The development comes in a writ petition moved by a visually impaired candidate aggrieved by removal from the post of Probationary Officers in SBI Associate Banks, over failure to clear the mandatory confirmation test.

The Petitioner contested the said termination at various levels of SBI, whereafter he filed a complaint with CCPwD.

The authority recommended revocation of Petitioner's termination and re-examination of the complainant after 6 months special training.

SBI however refused to implement this recommendation, prompting the Petitioner to move this plea.

The Court observed that CCPwD is empowered to recommend the corrective action to be taken by the Government in case it finds the deprivation of rights of PwDs. It can also recommend appropriate remedial measures where it finds factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of PwDs.

Section 76 of the RPwD Act mandates that whenever the CCPwD makes a recommendation to an Authority in pursuance of Section 75(1)(b) of the RPwD Act, such authority shall take necessary action on it and inform the CCPwD of the action taken, within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation.

The Proviso to the said provision however, the Court noted, states that where an authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to the CCPwD and shall also inform the aggrieved person of the same, within a period of three months

Nonetheless, the Court called upon the bank to consider if further relaxation can be given in the confirmation test for purposes of accommodating the petitioner and other PwD candidates, so as to ensure that the mandate of RPwD Act is not defeated.

“In case the respondents refuse to recommend such further relaxation in the standards or reasonable accommodation in the mode or manner of the examination, reasons for the same shall also be supplied to the petitioner,” the Court directed.

Petitioner had also argued that there should be a reservation for PwBDs in the confirmation test or a different yardstick for the confirmation test should be applied for such persons.

Rejecting this contention, the Court said there is no such mandate in the RPwD Act.

“Once the petitioner has been appointed to the post reserved for the PwBDs, the petitioner would have to clear the confirmation test for being confirmed to the said post. The RPwD Act does not provide further reservation at that stage,” it observed and disposed of the plea.

Appearance: Mr. Praful Shukla & Mr. Vipin Shukla, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Jatin Puniyani, Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava and Ms. Amisha P. Dash, Advs. For R1 and R2 Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC with Mr. Akshit Kapur, AOR, Ms. Riya Sood, Adv. Along with Mr. Shobit Mehrotra, CM (L&D) & Mr. Sachin Kumar Gupta, AGM (Law) for Respondents.

Case title: Munna Lal Yadav v. Department Of Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1475

Case no.: W.P.(C) 7197/2021

Click here to read order