Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Union Of India vs Pramod Sadashiv Thakre on 19 October, 2011
17) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of
India and others vs. Pramod Sadashiv Thakre cited supra
observes that Section 47 of the Act, protects the services of an
employee and makes no distinction between the nature of the
services it protects. In para-5 of this decision the Division
Bench dealt with the argument similar to that raised by Shri
Puranik, learned counsel, before us in the following terms --
Union Of India vs Devendra Kumar Pant And Ors on 9 July, 2009
11 wp90.12.odt
post, he should be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable
post is available or he attains superannuation, whichever is
earlier. Therefore, para-29 of the decision in Union of India
Vs. Devendra Kumar Pant and others, reported in (2009)
14 SCC 546, should not be seen as an isolated observation or
finding, but on a reading of all the paragraphs together, it
would be clear that the Supreme Court reinforces the object
and purpose of this Act and mandates employer like Union of
India and similarly placed before us to follow the Act.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs Vinesh Kumar Bhasin on 22 January, 2010
15) With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for
the parties, we have perused the petition, Annexures,
including the impugned order and the affidavits, which are
placed on record. In our view, the argument of Shri Puranik,
proceeds on misreading of the said Act. The paras relied on in
the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. Vinesh
.....10/-
The State Bank Of India Act, 1955
Section 2 in The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The State Bank Of India Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003
10 wp90.12.odt
Kumar Bhasin, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 368, would go to
show that instead of permitting the employer like respondent
No.1 to do away with the services of a person like the
petitioner, the Act mandates that they should assist and
rehabilitate him by providing alternate employment or even by
creating a supernumerary post to accommodate him in the
service. By relying on a judgment in case of Kunal Singh Vs.
Union of India, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 524, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court holds that the Act postulates that no person
with disability be deprived of the opportunity to work and find
a source of employment. The provisions have been termed as
non-discriminatory.
1