2013 High Court of Bombay (Bombay Bench) Cases Related to Persons with Disabilities
1) National Confederation for Development of Disabled and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: MANU/MH/2301/2013
Public Interest Litigation No. 106 of 2010 Decided On: 04.12.2013
Coram: M.S. Shah, C.J. and M.S. Sanklecha, J.
Subject: Service Matters
Petitioner’s case
The petitioners sought a directive to the respondents to appoint persons with disabilities to Indian
Administrative Service (IAS) positions, in accordance with Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Hence, the Petition.
Decision: The Petition was allowed.
The court ruled that reservation should be calculated based on the total number of vacancies in the
cadre strength, meaning no distinction could be made between posts filled by direct recruitment and
those filled by promotion. The total cadre vacancies would encompass both those filled by
nomination and those filled by promotion. The respondents were instructed to extend the benefits
of reservation to persons with disabilities in the promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
posts, in accordance with the Office Memorandum and subsequent related memoranda. As a result,
the benefits of reservation were mandated to be implemented from the date of issuance of the said
Office Memorandum.
Ratio Decidendi:
"No distinction shall be made in matter of appointment and promotion unless otherwise provided."
2) Maharashtra State Handicapped Employees'/Officers' Association Mumbai Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: MANU/MH/0062/2013
Writ Petition No. 9478 of 2012 Decided On: 18.01.2013
Coram: M.S. Shah, C.J. & Anoop V. Mohta, J.
Subject: Service Matters
Petitioner’s case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent-authority to revoke the special traveling
allowance for government and semi-government employees suffering from blindness. The issue at
hand was whether the recovery of special traveling allowances from employees, who were classified
as disabled persons by the Zilla Parishad at the relevant time, should be permitted.
Decision: Petition was allowed
The Court held that the definition of "blindness" in the Government Resolution dated 4 June 2001
did not align with the definition of "blindness" in Section 2(b) of the Act. By establishing a more
stringent standard, requiring both eyes to have less than 3/60 vision or a visual field of less than 10
degrees, the State Government had effectively denied the special travelling allowance to employees
who fell under the broader definition of "blindness" as per the Act of Parliament. This was not
permissible. The State Government could not adopt a narrower definition of "blindness" than that
provided in the Act of Parliament. As a result, the impugned order was deemed illegal and void, and
the respondents were instructed to follow the definition of "blindness" as outlined in Section 2(b) of
the Act when granting the special travelling allowance. In light of the judgement dated 12 September
2012 from the Court at the Aurangabad Bench, which addressed a similar issue regarding the
recovery of special travelling allowances, no recovery could be made from employees who did not
meet the criteria set out in the Government Resolution dated 4 June 2001.
