Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by persons with disabilities who were appointed on an honorarium basis by the Rajmata Bahu Uddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha, Beed, a society funded by the State. The petitioners had been working for several years without regularisation, receiving only a meager honorarium. They sought regularisation of their services and other benefits under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 33 which mandates reservation for persons with disabilities in employment. The court held that the State cannot continue to employ persons with disabilities on a temporary honorarium basis indefinitely, as it defeats the purpose of the Act which aims at their rehabilitation and equal participation. The court directed the State to regularise the services of the petitioners in accordance with the rules and to pay them salary at par with regular employees. The judgment emphasises the constitutional mandate of equality and the need to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Honorarium Employees - Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - The petitioners, persons with disabilities, were appointed on honorarium basis and worked for years without regularisation. The court held that the State cannot continue such temporary arrangements indefinitely and must regularise their services in accordance with the Act and rules. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Articles 14 and 16 - The court observed that denying regularisation to persons with disabilities while regularising others similarly situated violates the right to equality. The State must ensure equal treatment and not exploit disabled employees. (Paras 11-15) C) Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Section 33 - Reservation - The court noted that the State is obligated to provide reservation in employment for persons with disabilities and to ensure their rehabilitation. The failure to regularise the petitioners defeats the object of the Act. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who are persons with disabilities and have been working on honorarium basis for several years, are entitled to regularisation of their services and other benefits under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the State to regularise the services of the petitioners in accordance with the rules and to pay them salary at par with regular employees.
Law Points
- Regularisation of employees with disabilities
- Honorarium employees
- Rights under Persons with Disabilities Act
- 1995
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Equal pay for equal work
