Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri vs Nazir Ahmed Shah & Ors on 10 March, 2010
In Syed Bashir-Ud-Din Qadri Vs. Nazir Ahmed
Shah and others, (2010) 3 SCC 603, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that purpose of the Act is to enable the
disabled/physically challenged person to lead life of purpose and
human dignity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therein granted the
petitioner consequential benefit of continuity in service with all
notional benefits since he had been disengaged wrongfully.
Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010
In Government of India through Secretary and
Another vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another, (2010) 7 SCC
626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object to the Act
was (i) integrate persons with disabilities into social mainstream,
Section 2 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the
provisions of the Act in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India and
another , (2003) 4 SCC 524 , has held that an employee of an
establishment, who was not exempted from Section 47, acquiring
disability during service and getting incapacitated is covered under
Section 47 (i) (v) of the Act. It was further held that the protection
is mandatorily available to an employee acquiring disability during
his service and the same cannot be denied on the ground that he
was granted invalid pension or other benefits under the Service
Rules. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant observations, as
contained in paragraphs 1, 9 and 12, which read as under:-
The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 4 January, 2008
In Bhagwan Dass and another vs. Punjab State
Electricity Board , (2008) 1 SCC 579 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court criticized the approach of the Punjab State Electricity Board
by observing its attitude to be highly insensitive and apathetic. In
that case the appellant became blind and remained absent from
duty from 18.01.1994 to 21.03.1997 and had requested for his
retirement vide letter dated 17.07.1996 and who was retired vide
letter dated 14.12.1999. He has sought to withdraw his request for
retirement, when he came to know that such request was turned
down by the departmental authorities. It was in this background
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court came down heavily upon the
respondent and has observed as under:
1