HC expands interpretation of Article 21 to include comprehensive rights for disabled employees

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually expanded the interpretation of “life” under Article 21 of the Constitution by asserting that the term encompasses much more than mere survival for everyone, including the disabled.

The constitutional right include essential elements such as an improved standard of living and fair remuneration crucial for ensuring a dignified and fulfilling existence.

“The term ‘life’ as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution, by implication would not only be limited to mere survival or enduring hardship, but would encompass hygienic working conditions, the right to livelihood, to live with dignity, access to necessary support, proper and adequate opportunities to grow and evolve, an improved standard of living, remuneration commensurate to the capability within its ambit and would be extendable to persons with disability too,” Justice Aman Chaudhary asserted.

Justice Chaudhary was hearing a petition for quashing an order issued in May 2011, rejecting the petitioner’s promotion as Junior Braille Teacher. The petitioner, 100 per cent “blind by birth” was also seeking directions to provide promotional avenues to him.

Justice Chaudhary asserted ensuring these rights allowed individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labour and maintain wellbeing.

Addressing the specific context of disabled government employees, the court stressed that the State had a paramount duty to facilitate their professional advancement and ensure they were not left disadvantaged.

“A disabled government employee cannot be left high and dry for his progression in professional life, as the State owes a paramount duty to ensure that he can live with dignity, equality and without discrimination,” Justice Chaudhary asserted.

The court also criticized bureaucratic delays and called for a more humane approach in decision-making. “Red tapism must not mar the decisions that require to be also taken promptly and with utmost humane approach,” Justice Chaudhary observed.

The court asserted the State, committed to the welfare of all, must not only offer promotional opportunities to able individuals but also recognize the legitimate expectations and contributions of differently-abled individuals. Achieving higher positions was profoundly significant for them, reflecting their capabilities and contributions.

Justice Chaudhary added an employer was obligated to address grievances proactively, without requiring judicial intervention, once the issue was brought to its attention. The crucial aspect was the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. Societal and practical barriers often hindered their entry into the workforce, leading to unemployment. Once employed, these individuals deserve empathetic consideration from the State, which must be attuned to their challenges, aspirations, and dedication to their work.

The court directed the State of Haryana and other respondents to make a deliberate decision on creating a promotion pathway for proof reader’s position through an amendment of the rules within six months.

Following this, the petitioner should be considered for promotion within a month. Additionally, during this interim period, the petitioner should be considered for re-deployment to the vacant position of Junior Braille Teacher.