Employer’s Failure To Meet Needs Of Disabled Persons Breaches Norms Of “Reasonable Accommodation”: Tripura High Court

Employer’s Failure To Meet Needs Of Disabled Persons Breaches Norms Of “Reasonable Accommodation”

Case: Sri Bijoy Kumar Hrangkhawl v. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) and Ors.

Coram: Justice Arindam Loud

Case No.: WP(C) 694 OF 2020

Court Observation: “The conduct of the concerned officer is not in consonance with the object the legislatures wanted to achieve. Keeping in mind the objectives of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the respondents should realize the challenge the petitioner has been facing and accommodate him with humane approach. Any failure to meet the needs of disabled person will definitely breach the norms of reasonable accommodation.”

“(i) the respondents are to pay all the cumulative dues such as salary, allowances, etc. which were payable to the petitioner under his service conditions within a period of three month from today;

(ii) the salary and allowances payable to the petitioner shall be released from this month and regularize his service conditions by way of recalling all the earlier orders passed by TSECL treating his absence from duty as unauthorized absence. Those unauthorized absence period, according to the TSECL, shall be regularized and that would not have any bearing to the service of the petitioner;

(iii) if it is found that the petitioner is eligible to perform his duty, then, he may be permitted to undertake such duties. Further, if the petitioner is found to be unfit to perform the nature of duties, which he was performing before being disabled, then, he should be assigned/adjusted with such suitable duties which he would be able to discharge;

(iv) if the petitioner is found incapable of performing any kind of duties, then, the respondents are under obligation and shall pay all service benefits including the promotion to the petitioner by creating a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation;

(v) the respondents shall utilize capacity of the petitioner by providing and environment around him and ensure reasonable accommodation by way of making appropriate modifications and adjustments in the spirit of the discussions and observations made here-inabove;

(vi) the petitioner shall appear before the constituted Medical Board of the State Government within 7(seven) days from today. The Medical Board shall examine and issue necessary certificate mentioning the extent of his disability in consonance with the RPwD Act; and (vii) it is not advisable to send the petitioner to the Medical Board time and again.”

Previous Posts

Account Statements And IT Returns Relied On By Arbitral Tribunal, Have Evidentiary Value: Delhi High Court

Government Order Cannot Have Retrospective Operation Particularly When It’s Not A Legislation: Kerala High Court

Industrial Dispute Act: Person Working in the Capacity of Consultant Cannot Be Deemed Workman: Guj HC Quashes Reinstatement Order

Weapon’s Recovery From Hiding Place Which Is In Exclusive Knowledge Of Accused Makes Such Recovery Absolutely Reliable: Allahabad HC

Industrial Tribunal’s Order Can’t Be Challenged On Disputed Questions Of Facts Under Article 226: J&K&L High Court

Tax Exemptions Given With Benevolent Object, Approach For ‘Exempting’ & ‘Including’ Subject Matters Under Tax Purview Can’t Be Same: Orissa HC

Writ Petition Against Private University Not Maintainable, Remedy For Alleged Arbitrary Termination Lies Under Civil Law: Gujarat High Court

Kerala Municipality Act: No Property Tax Exemption U/S 235 For Building Given On Rent Merely Because Rent Is Utilised For Charity: High Court

License To Use Software Is “Deemed Sale”; Service Tax Not Leviable On Ground That Updates Are Provided: Supreme Court In QuickHeal’s Case

Keywords

Employer’s Failure To Meet Needs, Reasonable Accommodation