Punjab-Haryana High Court
Board Of School Education , ... vs State Commissioner For The ... on 5 October, 2023
CWP No.22247 of 2023 1
2023: PHHC:129387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.127 CWP No.22247 of 2023
Date of Decision: 05.10.2023
Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani .... Petitioner
Versus
The State Commissioner for the persons
with disabilities and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
2 2 2k
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 26.07.2023, Annexure P-7, passed by respondent
no.1-State Commissioner for persons with disabilities, whereby the
petitioner-Board of School Education has been directed to give four
additional increments to respondent no.2.
2. The impugned order, dated 26.07.2023, has been passed on a
complaint bearing CD No.614 of 22, dated 09.12.2022, filed by the
complainant (respondent no.2 herein) under the Right of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2016') seeking
direction to the respondent (petitioner herein) to give four additional
increments to respondent no.2. While allowing the complaint, respondent
no.1-State Commissioner has granted the following relief:
11. In view of detailed discussion as recorded above, the
present complaint is hereby allowed and it is recommended to
the respondent under the provisions of Section 80(b) read with
MANINDER
2023.10.07 15:08 Section 82(2) of RPwD Act, 2016, to provide the benefit of
y and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
2023: PHHC:129387
Special Increment in the salary strictly on the basis of Govt. of
Haryana instruction no.27/38/78-2 GS-III dated 24.10.1990 and
further change its Rules, if the same are contravening the
aforesaid instructions and provisions of RPwD Act, 2016.
12. The respondent shall accord the aforesaid benefits within
a period of 6 weeks from today and shall submit the compliance
report under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016 before this Court
within a period of 3 months from today with a copy to the
complainant. The file be consigned in the record room.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid
relief has been granted under Section 80 of the Act of 2016, and the
Commissioner has wrongly issued the direction for giving certain benefits to
respondent no.2 which is contrary to law. The issue pertains to service
dispute of respondent no.2 with the petitioner-Board, and the Commissioner
should not have gone into it, nor was he permitted to issue any direction for
compliance.
4. Heard.
5. Relevant provisions of the Act of 2016 under which the
Commissioner has passed the impugned order read as under:
80. Functions of State Commissioner- The State
commissioner shall-
(a) identify, suo motu or otherwise, provision of any law or
policy, programme and procedures, which are in consistent with
this Act, and recommend necessary corrective steps;
(b) inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of
persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in
respect of matters for which the State Government is the
MANINDER
2023.10.07 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
MANINDER
2023.10.07 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
2023: PHHC:129387
appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate
authorities for corrective action;
(c) review the safeguards provided by or under this Act or any
other law for the time being in force for the protection of rights
of persons with disabilities and recommend measures for their
effective implementation;
(d) review the factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of
persons with disabilities and recommend appropriate remedial
measures;
(e) undertake and promote research in the field of the rights of
persons with disabilities;
(f) promote awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities
and the safeguards available for their protection;
(g) monitor implementation of the provisions of this Act and
schemes, programmes meant for persons with disabilities;
(h) monitor utilisation of funds disbursed by the State
Government for the benefits of persons with disabilities; and
(i) perform such other functions as the State Government may
assign.
81. Action by appropriate authorities on recommendation
of State Commissioner.-
Whenever the State Commissioner makes a
recommendation to an authority in pursuance of clause (b) of
Section 80, that authority shall take necessary action on it, and
inform the State Commissioner of the action taken within three
months from the date of receipt of the recommendation:
Provided that where an authority does not accept a
recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to
2023: PHHC:129387
the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities within the
period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved
person.
6. Similar controversy arose before this Court in a petition bearing
CWP No.18496 of 2023 titled The Director, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak and others v. Deepak
Kumar and another, wherein it was observed as under:
6. It is apparent from provisions of Section 80 (b) of the Act of
2016 that the Commissioner is empowered to inquire into
deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities in respect of
matters concerning the State Government or any establishment
substantially financed by it, and take up the matters with
appropriate authorities for corrective action. It is in exercise of
these powers that the Commissioner granted the aforesaid relief
to respondent no.1 by recommending the petitioners/University
to take action in terms thereof. Further, Section 81 of the Act of
2016 provides, whenever a State Commissioner makes
recommendation to an authority under Section 80 (b) of the Act
of 2016, the authority shall take necessary action on it and
inform the Commissioner about the same within three months
from receiving the recommendation. Provided, if the authority
does not accept the recommendation, it shall convey reasons for
non-acceptance to the Commissioner within three months, and
shall also inform the aggrieved person.
7. Since the commissioner has recommended certain actions to be
taken with regard to service issues of respondent no.2 in terms of the relief
granted, vide the impugned order dated 26.07.2023, the Board is required to
MANINDER
2023.10.07 15:08 act upon the same under Section 81 of the Act of 2016 by taking necessary
authenticity of this yen
order/judgment.
2023: PHHC:129387
action. In case the recommendation is not acceptable, the Board is within its
rights to convey the reasons for non-acceptance to the Commissioner as well
as respondent no.2. Therefore, no cause of action accrues to the petitioner to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the
Commissioner's order.
8. Petition stands disposed of.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
05.10.2023
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANINDER
2023.10.07 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
