Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rameshwar Mahadeorao Surve, a Laboratory Technician employed by the Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, acquired a 40% low vision disability in 2010 while in service. Under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, he was entitled to be shifted to an equivalent post. A proposal to reassign him to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) was mooted in 2010 and submitted to the State Government. The post fell vacant in March 2015, and the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.3) sought permission from the State Government, which was delayed. In the meantime, the respondent No.3 initiated direct recruitment for the post and issued a public advertisement. The petitioner approached the High Court in December 2015, and the Court granted a stay. The Court noted that the petitioner continued to work as a Health Assistant with protected wages. The legal issue was whether the State Government was obligated to consider the proposal for reassignment and whether the direct recruitment process could override the petitioner's rights under the Act. The Court held that the State Government must consider and decide the proposal expeditiously, as the Act mandates protection for disabled employees. The Court directed the State Government to decide the proposal within four weeks, and the respondent No.3 to keep one post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) vacant pending the decision. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Disability Law - Reassignment to Equivalent Post - Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The petitioner, a Laboratory Technician with 40% low vision disability, sought reassignment to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) which was equivalent and for which he was qualified. The proposal was pending with the State Government for years. The Court held that the State Government must consider and decide the proposal expeditiously, and the direct recruitment process cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner's right under Section 47. The Court directed the State Government to decide the proposal within four weeks, and the respondent No.3 to keep one post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) vacant pending such decision. (Paras 1-8)
B) Disability Law - Protection of Wages - Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - The petitioner's wages were protected under the Act while he worked on a subordinate post. The Court noted that the Act mandates protection of wages and service conditions for employees who acquire disability during service. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is obligated to consider and decide the proposal for reassignment of a disabled employee to an equivalent post under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and whether the employee can be denied such reassignment due to administrative delays or direct recruitment process.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider and decide the proposal for reassignment of the petitioner to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) within four weeks. The respondent No.3 is directed to keep one post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) vacant pending the decision of the State Government.
Law Points
- Reassignment of disabled employee to equivalent post
- Protection of wages
- Consideration of proposal by State Government
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities
- Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act
- 1995
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 159
Writ Petition No.6254 of 2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.N. Deshmukh
Mr. S.U. Nemade for Petitioner, Smt. P.D. Rane for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, Mr. M.I. Mourya for Respondent Nos.3 and 4
Rameshwar s/o. Mahadeorao Surve
State of Maharashtra, Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to consider proposal for reassignment of disabled employee to equivalent post under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to the State Government to consider and decide the proposal for his reassignment to the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) and to restrain the respondents from filling the post by direct recruitment.
Filing Reason
The proposal for reassignment was pending with the State Government for years, and the respondent No.3 initiated direct recruitment for the post, threatening the petitioner's right to be shifted to an equivalent post under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Previous Decisions
The proposal was submitted to the State Government in 2010, and clarifications were sought and furnished in 2015. The post fell vacant in March 2015, and the respondent No.3 issued a public advertisement for direct recruitment. The High Court granted a stay on 3rd December, 2015.
Issues
Whether the State Government is obligated to consider and decide the proposal for reassignment of a disabled employee to an equivalent post under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995?
Whether the direct recruitment process initiated by the respondent No.3 can be a ground to deny the petitioner's right to reassignment?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, he is entitled to be shifted to an equivalent post, and the proposal has been pending for years without decision.
Respondents argued that the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) was vacant and direct recruitment was necessary for administrative reasons, and the petitioner lacked qualifications for other Extension Officer posts.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, an employee who acquires disability during service is entitled to be shifted to an equivalent post with protected wages. The State Government is obligated to consider and decide the proposal for such reassignment expeditiously, and administrative delays or direct recruitment processes cannot override the statutory right.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner presently about 43 years old and a qualified Laboratory Technician in employment of respondent No.3Zilla Parishad incurred disability (low vision) in 2010 while in employment. The extent of disability is 40%.
Proposal to shift the petitioner to a post equivalent in all respects i.e. Extension Officer (Panchayat) was mooted in 2010 and was submitted to State Government.
The petitioner continues to work on a subordinate post of Health Assistant and due to provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 his wages are protected.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6254 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in December 2015. The Court issued notice and granted a stay on 3rd December, 2015. The petition was finally heard on 8th March, 2016, and disposed of with directions.
Acts & Sections
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Section 47
