Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
A. Veeriya Perumal vs The Secretary To Government, Health And ... on 20 July, 2006
In A. Veeriya Perumal vs. Secretary to
Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai
[(2006) 4 M.L.J. 335], a Division Bench held that sub-
section (1) of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act is clear
in terms that "no establishment shall dispense with or
reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during
his service". The Division Bench held that the right to
livelihood, which is an integral facet of the right to life
as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
coupled with the protection under Section 47 of the
Disabilities Act entitles the employee who was incapacitated
during service for continuance of service in suitable
alternative post with same scale of pay drawn by him and
other service benefits. It was also held that the
appellant/employee's right to alternate employment cannot be
deprived solely on ground of medical invalidation, as his
right is protected under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Comptroller & Auditor General Of India & ... vs Farid Sattar on 7 April, 2000
7. On the side of the petitioner, the judgment in
Writ Appeal No.860 of 2007 [The Management of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram vs. B. Gnanasekaran] was relied on. (2000) 4
S.C.C. 13 [Comptroller & Auditor General of India vs. Farid
Sattar] is cited on behalf of the respondent. In the latter
case, the claim for protection of pay was rejected on the
ground that the workman had applied for universal transfer
after seeking reversion to the lower post of Accountant as a
direct recruit, which the respondent before the Supreme
Court accepted and thereafter had prayed for protection of
pay and it was rightly rejected by the Supreme Court. This
does not apply to the present case.