Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs Shamsher Singh And Ors on 12 September, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1521 of 2014 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 12.09.2014
Union of India
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Shamsher Singh and others
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Vide order dated January 15, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition (CWP No. 20996 of 2010) filed by Shamsher Singh (respondent No.1 herein) seeking direction to the appellant to consider him, being handicapped, for promotion to I.A.S cadre under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, was allowed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors., decided on October 08, 2013), while making the following observations :
"Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1521 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2- National Federation of the Blind & Ors.), vide its judgement dated 8.10.2013 has directed Union of India to issue appropriate order, modifying O.M. Dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent O.Ms consistent with the order passed by the Supreme Court within three months from the date of passing of the judgement. A further direction was issued to the appropriate Government to compute the number of vacancies available in all the establishments and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from the date of the order and implement the same without default. He further states that benefit of reservation under the Disabilities Act would be available to all Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D posts and, therefore, directions were to be complied with by the respondent- Union of India on or before 07.01.2014. The said period has elapsed.
On 3.12.2013, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, has issued an office memorandum, giving effect to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Copies of said memorandum have been circulated to all the Chief Secretaries of the State/Union Territory.
He, on the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court in National Federation of the Blind's case (supra) as also the office memorandum dated 3.12.2013 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, states that the petitioner at this stage would be satisfied if the claim of the petitioner for consideration for promotion to the I.A.S cadre is concerned in the light of the said judgement and the circular of Union of India within some specified time. He further states that after computing the number of posts, which would be reserved for the handicapped category, his claim may be decided accordingly by respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Learned Senior counsel submits that he has no grievance against the promotion of Anita Yadav, respondent No.5, as she was promoted against the post earmarked in the year 2010 as the claim DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1521 of 2014 ( O&M ) -3- of the petitioner is limited qua the posts upto the year 2009.
This prayer of counsel for the petitioner has not been opposed by counsel for the respondents.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to firstly identify the posts, which would be earmarked for the handicapped category for promotion to I.A.S Cadre and thereafter to proceed and decide the claim of the petitioner for promotion to I.A.S. Cadre against the posts till the year 2009 within a period of two months from today."
Subsequently, the appellant moved an application (CM No. 10739 of 2014) for modification of the aforesaid order. The said application was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge, while making the following observations :
"In the light of para-28 of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Union of India and another vs. National Federation of the Blind and others, Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7541 of 2009, no ground for modification of the order dated 15.01.2014 is made out.
The application stands dismissed."
The appellant has challenged both the aforesaid orders by filing the instant intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
There is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 3320-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay. Though no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the appellant for condoning the said delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and have gone through the orders, passed by the learned Single Judge.
DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1521 of 2014 ( O&M ) -4-
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that reservation for physically handicapped persons has been made in all categories of the posts specified by the Department, but that is only with regard to the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment. According to the learned counsel, the said reservation is not admissible in case of appointment by promotion to Grade A and B posts. Such kind of reservation is given in appointment by promotion in case of Grade C and D posts.
We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of the Blind's case (supra), particularly para 28 of the judgment, and we do not find that any such categorisation was made in any part of the judgment. Therefore, in our view, the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 has rightly been allowed by the learned Single Judge with directions to the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 to consider his case in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the appellant wants to seek any clarification as to whether the reservation for appointment by way of promotion to Grade A and B posts is to be made or not, it has to follow the course available in law. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 12, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.09.16 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document