Disabled employee’s housing plea turns PIL; HC impleads Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh
To ensure comprehensive adjudication, the court ordered that the three governments be impleaded
Expanding the scope of a disabled employee’s housing plea into a larger public cause, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that his petition be treated as a Public Interest Litigation after observing that the matter travelled beyond individual grievance and concerned the rights of other physically disabled employees.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari also impleaded the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh through their Chief Secretaries, along with the Principal Secretary/Secretary/Director of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. The matter was also directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to the appropriate Bench.
The matter was placed before Justice Tiwari’s Bench after the petitioner with 60 per cent permanent disability in relation to his right leg approached the court. He was seeking directions to allot him a “structurally suitable and occupationally fit house” and to undertake “all necessary modifications, repairs, and accessibility adjustments in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.” He was diagnosed with “PPRP of the right lower limb with wasting and shortening of the right lower limb, quadriceps palsy on the right side, having flexion deformities at hip and knee joints.”
Justice Tiwari noted that the statutory framework already comprehensively addressed such grievances. “The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, comprehensively addresses the grievance articulated in the present writ petition,” the court observed.
Referring to the mandate under the law, Justice Tiwari observed a statutory obligation was cast upon the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, to lay down standards for accessibility pertaining to the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, as well as other facilities and services extended to the public.
The court further noted Section 44 expressly prohibited the grant of permission to any establishment for constructing any structure unless the building plan adhered fully to the rules prescribed by the Central Government.
Taking a broader view, Justice Tiwari held: “The issue inhering the instant writ petition transcends the individual grievance of the petitioner and bears wider ramifications, inasmuch as it concerns the rights of similarly situated physically disabled employees serving in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, including those employed in Boards, Corporations, and Societies under the control and administrative purview of the respective States and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.”
To ensure comprehensive adjudication, the court ordered that the three governments be impleaded.
Considering the wider public interest and the fact that the petitioner was appearing in person, the Court appointed senior advocate Kshitij Sharma and counsel Tahaf Bains as amicus curiae “to assist in the adjudication of the matter,” and directed the Registry to supply them the complete record.
