Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Realising the gravity of the situation and the apathy with which some of bureaucracy have been neglecting the handicapped, I have observed as under:

Before parting with this judgment, I may again observe that in matter of providing relief to those who been cursed by the nature or God and are physically handicapped, the respondent State and its functionaries should take a very liberal and beneficial attitude of the entire matter. This case should not be treated as a legal battle between a citizen and the State, because one who is already handicapped and has musterd up courage to come to this Court should be respected by the State which represents all the fortunate, privileged and unprivileged rich and poor, highly placed persons and the down trodden, Such physically handicapped persons who are lowest in the ladder, require best of the attention of the State which is a social welfare State and which according to the Constitution given by the founding fathers is committed to do justice social, economic and political to all citizens of the State.
I have further observed as under:
The yawning gap between legislation and its implemention has not only handicapped but crippled humanitarian belief of employment tended to be given to the Physically handicapped persons, in Rajasthan, by the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976, hereinafter called "the Rules of 1976".
In this age of ultra advanced science and technology a man can reach space in hours but the mighty bureaucracy of Rajasthan have not even earmarked 2% posts for handicapped after more than three years, inspite of the fact that this period witnessed an important polical change The Head of the Departments, who constitute 'top brass' of bureaucracy: apathy towards this great social welfare legislation remained static, & unchanged. The dogmatic approach, the snail moving lethargy, and the inhuman indifference bordering on abhorrence and hatred for God cursed physically handicapped, continues unabated. Such is the tragic, and pathetic situation which poses the billion dollar question, what are we about as posed by Justice Iyer in the prohibition case P.N. Kaushal v. Union of India 1979 WLN 582. What Justice Iyer said about Article 47 orphanage in the Punjab Government, can well be said about Article 51 in relation to the Rajasthan State.
...A physically handicapped petitioner could not get relief from alleged administratively and mentally handicapped respondents, and wants employment relief from this Court. The respondent's submission is that this Court has got judicial handicap to grant all the reliefs which are claimed. This writ petition, therefore, is a pathetic battle of handicaps, by a physically handicapped against an administrative handicapped Government being fought in a 'judicial forum' of legal and constitutional limitations.

27. It was also pointed out that the Prime Minister has desired that the Monitoring section of the departments should obtain reports within 3 months about the implementation of the scheme and the decisions to provide employment to physically handicapped blind persons. It is interesting and enlightening too to find that in this letter of Shri Anjaiya, the Prime Minister has desired to overrule and override the technicalities in complying with the rules of reservation for the handicapped persons has been emphasised. It has been mentioned categorically that on technical or bogus reasons or grounds, the employment should not be refused. Ultimately, the letter mentions that the Blind Persons National Federation and other organizations for giving relief of employment to blind persons, are now working upon the formation of Central Advisory Committee and it would be the duty of this Committee to periodically examine the progress of the scheme to provide employment to the physically handicapped blind persons.