Ritesh Sinha VS State of Haryana & Ors: Court reinstates employment of worker with spastic cerebral palsy
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3087 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Petitioner had spastic cerebral palsy and was orthopedically impaired. He applied for the post of a clerk in pursuance to an advertisement dated 23.2.2010 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal under physically handicapped category. He passed the entrance examination and got selected for the post. The competent authority declared the petitioner as a case of cerebral palsy (100% handicapped) and fit for office work under the handicapped category.
It was mentioned in the terms of appointment that the appointment is on temporary basis and was liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason or without any prior notice.
On 5.2.2011 the District & Sessions Judge, Karnal passed an order for termination of petitioner’s employment. The Hon’ble Court stayed the operation of this impugned order and directed the petitioner to continue with his job. Respondents contended that the termination order was in accordance with the terms of his appointment letter.
After adverting both the parties and the Medical Board report, the Hon ble Court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, to look into the feasibility of assigning an appropriate job/task to the petitioner.
In pursuance thereto, the District and Sessions Judge, Karnal, submitted a report dated 22.8.2012 according to which the petitioner being a case of cerebral palsy could not be assigned any job/task in the Court establishment at Karnal. It was stated that the petitioner cannot even start the computer himself nor could even move a paper from one place to another and cannot open a file and operate a printer.
The Hon’ble Court asked the Registrar (Administration) of the Court to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was in a position to operate the computer, give appropriate commands etc. The report of the Registrar (Administration), expressed that the petitioner can do some work on the computer, though slowly.
The Hon’ble court opined that though the petitioner may be slow in handling the computer but could perform the duties on a computer and can be assigned such a task, which can be handed over to him in the office primarily relating to computers and can be accommodated where he can perform his duties as a Clerk in the light of his qualifications while keeping in view his capacity, capability and competence and observed that the petitioner would be able to perform his duties and the object of the Disability Act would be given effect to in true spirit.
The Hon’ble Court passed an order to quash the impugned order dated 5.2.2011 and entitled the petitioner to all consequential benefits.ritesh-sinha.pdf
Slideshow - Related Post
16/07/2010Hiralal M. Khatik v. Central Railway