Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. By means of an order dated 19.06.2024, the appellant was transferred from Corporate Office of respondent no.1 at Faridabad to its Eastern Zone Office at Durgapur in public interest. Pursuant to the said order of transfer dated 19.06.2024, a relieving letter was also issued to the appellant on 02.07.2024, directing him to submit his joining at Durgapur.

5. The appellant filed a complaint on 21.07.2024/22.07.2024, with the CCPD under Section 75 of the 2016 Act, alleging therein that he has been subjected to frequent transfers which reflected mala fide and which amounted to harassment to a person with disability (hereinafter referred to as the 'PwD') at the hands of his employer. Notices were issued on the complaint instituted by the appellant to respondent no.1 and on hearing, orders were reserved on 30.07.2024 to be pronounced at a later date. However, on 02.08.2024, CCPD passed an order directing respondent no.1 to keep the transfer order in abeyance till the matter was pending before the CCPD. By the order dated 02.08.2024, the CCPD also directed respondent no.1 to furnish certain information/documents.

10. Referring to Section 75 of 2016 Act which outlines the functions of CCPD, it has been argued by Mr.Rahul Bajaj, that CCPD not only suo motu but even otherwise, which would mean entertaining an application or complaint, is empowered to identify the provisions of any law or policy or programs which are inconsistent with the 2016 Act and accordingly, can take corrective steps. He has also argued that under the said provision, specifically under Section 75(1)(b) of 2016 Act, on an application or complaint, CCPD is empowered and well within his jurisdiction to enquire deprivation of rights of PwDs. He has further stated that CCPD can also enquire about infringement of safeguards available to PwDs and since in the instant case transfer of the appellant was in complete disregard to the rights of equality and other rights available to the appellant, who is a PwD, CCPD was well within his powers to have passed the order dated 02.08.2024 whereby, transfer of the appellant was stayed.

11. Specific reference by Mr.Rahul Bajaj has been made to Section 76(1) of 2016 Act which provides for the action by the appropriate authority in respect of the orders passed by CCPD. He has stated that whenever, CCPD makes a recommendation to an authority under Section 75(1)(b) of the 2016 Act, such an authority is under statutory mandate to take necessary action on such recommendation/orders passed by CCPD. Such an authority, according to Mr.Rahul Bajaj, is also mandated to inform the CCPD of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of such recommendation/orders made/passed by CCPD.

19. It has also been argued on behalf of respondent no.1 that 2016 Act and the Rules framed there under do not empower or vest any jurisdiction in the CCPD to interfere in the internal management of the affairs of employees of an organization especially into the matters related to the service disputes concerning the employees. He has further argued that CCPD lacks jurisdiction to keep an order of transfer in abeyance for the reason that the mandate given to the CCPD under 2016 Act is only to safeguard the interests of disabled persons which will not extend to the extent of interfering in the internal administrative matters, such as transfer of an employee. It is his submission further that such an action on the part of the CCPD exceeds its legal authority and, in fact, disrupts the administrative function of an organization and, accordingly, the mandate available to the CCPD under 2016 Act does not extend to intervening in the administrative decisions, especially in the matters related to transfer of an employee.