Bombay HC: Commissioner’s Power Under the Disability Act Not Just Confined to Taking Up Cases

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Justice Milind A. Jadhav, Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner could give orders under the act after hearing the appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Welfare of the Persons with Disabilities established under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Facts of the Case

The respondent was working as a bus conductor in a BEST bus run by Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, a statutory authority. He suffered from an accident on one day due to which he underwent many knee surgeries and had knee plates inserted. Afterwards, he was referred by the authority to have a medical checkup done where they certified that he has 41% permanent disability. Later, he was referred to other hospitals in which Sir J.J. Hospital confirmed that he has a disability of 17%. Then All India Institute of Physical Medical and Rehabilitation refused to give him a disability certificate because he had a disability of less than 40%.

The respondent was later reinstated to a lighter job but was removed by the authority. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court but was asked to approach the Commissioner, an authority under the Disabilities Act, 1995, to look into the matter. The Commissioner partly allowed the plea of the respondent and asked the petitioner to reinstate him. The petitioner approached the High Court, asking the court to reconsider the decision of the Commissioner. The case was again sent to Commissioner of the Welfare of the Disabled who again reiterated the decision. The present writ petition was filed to quash the decision of the Commissioner.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted the following arguments:

  1. The respondent does have a disability of less than 40%. As per the requirement of the act, the disability benefits can be given only to a person who has a minimum of 40% permanent disability.
  2. The Commissioner does not have the authority to ask the employer to reinstate the respondent. It can only give advice but can’t give orders under the act.

Respondent’s Arguments

The counsel for the respondent submitted the following arguments:

  1. The disability certificate issued by Lok Manya Tilak Hospital (the first hospital he was referred to) said that the respondent has a disability of 41%. This was supported by medical officers as well.
  2. The disability certificate issued by Sir J.J. Hospital, stating that he has a disability of 17% is not valid as the hospital did no proper investigation.

Court’s Observations

The court analysed the arguments of both the parties in two steps:

Medical Disability certificate

The court observed that when the disability certificate and medical checkup was thoroughly done by the KEM Hospital and Lok Manya Hospital, there was no need to send the respondent to the other hospital. Moreover, the certificate issued by Sir J.J. Hospital cannot be considered as a proper test since no proper identification was present on the certificate, concluding that the respondent has 17% disability. Hence, the report of KEM & Lok Manya Hospitals are reliable.

Authority of the Commissioner under the Disability Act, 1995

The court relied heavily upon the Supreme Court decision in Geetaben Ratilal v. District Primary Education where it was held that upon a combined reading of section 42 and section 62 of the act, it could be seen that the Commissioner is not confined just with the power of taking up the cases, but can also give the required orders.

Court’s Decision

Going through the provisions of the Disability Act of 1995 and the 2016 act, as well the judgments, and medical certificates, the court safely held that the medical reports of the KEM & Lok Manya Hospitals are valid and that the Commissioner’s decision under the act was accurate. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -