Case Title: Bhavneet Singh v Ircon Internatioal Ltd. through Chairman & MD & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 12404/2022, CM APPL. Nos. 37256/2022 & 10458/2023
Decided on: 15th December 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an orthopedically challenged individual with a 72% locomotor impairment, filed a plea under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking to vacate a transfer order issued by IRCON International Ltd. The petitioner was moved from the corporate office to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project. The petitioner claimed that the transfer violated Articles 14 and 16, as well as the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995. The petitioner claimed that the move harmed their medical treatment since they needed frequent care and access to healthcare because of their particular condition.
The petitioner had earlier filed a complaint against IRCON for noncompliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The respondent, IRCON, justified the transfer on the basis of administrative necessities, professional interests, and the amenities of the location where the petitioner was moved. The respondent contended that the move was not malicious and offered the petitioner with extra benefits.
After evaluating the reasons and referring to relevant legal requirements, the court determined that the transfer order violated Article 14 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. It emphasised the significance of providing people with disabilities with equal opportunities and adequate accommodations. The court overturned the transfer orders and granted the petitioner’s request.
Legal Provisions
The legal issues at the centre of the case are largely concerned with the rights and safeguards afforded to individuals with disabilities under the Indian Constitution and particular legislation. The petitioner has cited Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, claiming that the contested transfer orders violate the basic rights to equality and non-discrimination. The petitioner also cites the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunity, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act of 1995, which attempts to promote equal treatment and opportunity for people with disabilities.
The lawsuit also makes reference to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016, which emphasises the rights and dignity of people with disabilities and includes requirements on reasonable accommodation, nondiscrimination, and procedures for posting and transferring employees with disabilities. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums are quoted to claim that people with disabilities should be exempted from rotational transfer regulations and given precedence in place of posting, subject to administrative limits.
The court’s decision emphasises the principles enshrined in these legal provisions, emphasising the need for the government to take a sensitive and proactive approach in matters involving persons with disabilities, and it overturns the impugned transfer orders as violative of the petitioner’s rights under the aforementioned legal provisions.
Issues
The petitioner’s challenge to the transfer orders issued by respondent No.1, IRCON International Ltd., is central to the legal concerns in this case. The petitioner, who has a 72% locomotor impairment, seeks redress under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claims that the transfer breaches Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as well as the stipulations of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act of 1995. The petitioner claims that transferring to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project will deprive him of critical medical treatment and amenities, in violation of his rights under disability legislation.
Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the transfer was made in bad faith and not in compliance with the criteria outlined in numerous Office Memorandums issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The petitioner claims that the move violates non-discrimination and equal opportunity rules for people with impairments. The respondent, on the other hand, claims that the transfer is a regular administrative decision based on professional demands, and that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands, hiding crucial information. The court is responsible with determining the validity of the transfer in light of constitutional rights and disability legislation.
Courts analysis and decision
In this case, the petitioner, a person with a 72% locomotor handicap, asked the court to vacate a transfer order issued by the respondent, IRCON International Ltd., under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claimed that the transfer violated Articles 14 and 16, as well as the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995. The petitioner stated that the relocation to Chhattisgarh would deprive him of critical medical attention and assistance, causing his poor medical condition to deteriorate. After reviewing the comments, the court emphasised the importance of guaranteeing equal opportunities and protecting the rights of people with disabilities, as emphasised by different national and international instruments.
Finally, the court’s ruling emphasises the constitutional and legislative requirement to protect the rights of people with disabilities, emphasising the necessity of taking into account their particular needs and guaranteeing equal opportunities. The verdict demonstrates a commitment to a caring and inclusive approach, reaffirming the ideals stated in the constitution and relevant legislation pertaining to people with disabilities.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
