[AI] Supreme Court pulls up Railways, Centre

sandesh sandeshnarayane at nerdshack.com
Mon Jul 26 02:55:01 EDT 2010


this is not pertaining to blindness, definitely it needs list's attention:

Source: http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/24/stories/2010072462571500.htm

Supreme Court pulls up Railways, Centre

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi:Shocked at the Railways' denial of a job to a physically
handicapped woman on the only ground that her name was not sponsored by the
Employment Exchange though she was placed on the merit list, the Supreme
Court has pulled up the Centre and the Railways for this inhuman treatment.
Besides ordering immediate employment, a Bench awarded her Rs. 3 lakh in
costs.

Pritilata Nanda of Orissa, who suffers from paralysis of lower limbs, was
deprived of her rights for 21 years.

The appellants, the Centre and South Eastern Railway (SER), violated her
right to equality in employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the
Constitution, held the Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly

The Bench directed the SER to grant Ms. Nanda appointment in a Class III
post within two weeks. It would be effective from the date the person placed
at Serial No. 12 in the merit list was appointed. Her pay should be
notionally fixed with effect from that date and she should be given actual
monetary benefits with effect from September 5, 2008, the date specified in
the order passed by the Orissa High Court.

The Bench made it clear that Ms. Nanda's pay should be fixed in the revised
scales introduced from time to time, and arrears should be paid within four
months.

As for her seniority among Class III employees, the court said she should be
placed below the person at Sl. No. 10 on the merit list. If during the
intervening period, any person junior to her had been elevated to the next
higher post, then her candidature should also be considered for promotion.
On being found suitable, she should be promoted with effect from the date
any of her juniors was promoted and given all consequential benefits.

The Bench directed the SER General Manager to ensure that she was not
victimised by being posted in a remote area.

No victimisation:

The Bench said in the last six decades, Parliament and the State
legislatures had enacted several laws for giving effect to the provisions
contained in Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles) but
implementation of these legislation was extremely tardy and the intended
beneficiaries had to struggle hard and at times seek court intervention.

This case was illustrative of the lack of sensitivity on the part of those
entrusted with doing justice on the administrative side "which is a sine qua
nonfor good governance," the Bench said.

"The respondent appears to have become so frustrated that even though she
succeeded in convincing the High Court to issue a direction to the competent
authority to appoint her in a Class III post with retrospective effect, she
has not thought it fit to appear and contest this appeal [in the Supreme
Court].

Ms. Nanda was selected in 1989 pursuant to an SER notification issued on
January 31, 1987. But she was not appointed on the ground that she was not
sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

Though the Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept her plea, the High
Court in September 2008 directed that she be appointed

No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.0.0.19 - 10.004.060).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list