Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Mitter vs State Of Punjab & Others on 12 October, 2011
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No.15279 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.15279 of 2011
Date of decision: 12.10.2011
Jagdish Mitter ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.K. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhiber Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to release his salary, as also to ensure that petitioner is not subjected to any harassment by respondent No.4 on account of being visually impaired. On 9th September, 2011, this court had directed that respondents No.1 and 2 shall take appropriate decision in the matter as there may be number of physically challenged employees, who are subjected to miseries and hardships every day. The said respondents were also directed to file their affidavits and to ensure that a peon be provided to the petitioner for assisting him in his day to day work.
Learned State counsel today apprises the court that instructions, Annexure R-2/1 have been issued whereby it has been directed that provisions of Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, have to be complied with to ensure that no employee should suffer in course of his CWP No.15279 of 2011 2 employment. This apart, an environment has to be created where all such employees shall work with dignity and are provided all necessary facilities. She submits that apart from issuance of instructions, the petitioner has been provided with a peon (male) to assist him in his day- to-day activity. Salary of the petitioner has already been released. Thus, prayer made in the present petition has been rendered infructuous.
In view of stand of the State that orders passed by this court from time to time have been complied with, no cause of action survives and thus no further orders are required to be passed.
However, in view of the fact that petitioner is visually impaired and has alleged that he has been subjected to harassment, it is directed that respondents No.1 & 2 shall continue to monitor his employment conditions as well as other physically challenged employees working in the Education Department. In case any grievance is reported, same shall be looked into by them expeditiously and it shall be ensured that provisions of 1995 Act are complied with in letter and spirit.
Disposed of.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 12.10.2011 'rajpal'