Delhi High Court: The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed challenging a judgment delivered by the Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that that the order dated 02-08-2024, is to be treated as an interim recommendation under Section 75 and 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which needs to be considered by the respondent 1 and, in case, it is unable to accept said recommendation, it needs to convey the valid reasons therefore to the CCPD.
The present Letters Patent Appeal arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of the appellant, an employee of the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), which was challenged before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The appellant, a person with a disability, approached the CCPD, contending that the transfer order was contrary to the rights granted under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and sought its suspension. By an order dated 02-08-2024, the CCPD directed the NPTI to keep the transfer in abeyance.
Aggrieved by this order, NPTI filed a petition before the Single Judge, asserting that the CCPD lacked jurisdiction to intervene in matters of service and transfer, which fall within the domain of the employer’s discretion. It was further contended that the transfer was made in accordance with administrative exigencies and was not punitive in nature. Accepting these arguments, the Single Judge, by an order dated 02-09-2024, allowed the writ petition and set aside the CCPD’s directive.
The present intra-court appeal has been preferred against this judgment, with the appellant arguing that the Single Judge erred in disregarding the special protections available to persons with disabilities under the law. The appellant contended that the CCPD has the authority to ensure compliance with disability rights and that the transfer order, if enforced, would cause undue hardship. Conversely, the respondents maintained that transfer is an incident of service and that the intervention by the CCPD was beyond its jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, centers on the question of whether the CCPD had the authority to direct the suspension of the transfer order and whether the Single Judge correctly assessed the legal and factual matrix in setting aside the CCPD’s order.
The Court noted that the law under the old statutory regime in terms of 1995 Act is clear, according to which the Chief Commissioner or Commissioners under the said Act lacked necessary power, authority, and jurisdiction to issue any mandatory prohibitory injunction or other interim orders. The old regime, i.e., 1995 Act was enacted to implement the proclamation issued at the meeting held in the year 1992 of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and pacific to which India was a signatory. After the said proclamation and enactment of the Act 1995, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its Convention on rights of PwDs on 13-12-2006, laying down certain principles for empowerment of PwDs. India is a signatory to the said Convention and ratified the Convention on 01-10-2007 and accordingly, to implement the said Convention, the Parliament enacted 2016 Act. Thus, if the statutory provisions contained in 1995 Act and 2016 Act are compared, the provisions under 2016 regime provides better armory to the CCPD in its fold to ensure that recommendations made by him for taking corrective steps and measures are implemented.
The Court examined the binding nature of recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under Sections 75 and 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court observed that while the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner are generally binding on the concerned authorities, there exists a narrow exception where the authority can decline to implement the recommendations by providing valid reasons. Such reasons must be communicated both to the Chief Commissioner and the affected person. The Court also clarified that the CCPD possesses the power to issue interim recommendations, which must be considered by the relevant authority. However, these interim measures are subject to the same condition that the authority may refuse to implement them for valid reasons, provided such reasons are conveyed.
The Court further examined the scope of CCPD’s powers in employment-related matters concerning persons with disabilities (PwDs). It reiterated that service-related matters such as transfers, promotions, and disciplinary actions primarily fall within the purview of the employer. However, if an employer violates specific provisions under the 2016 Act, such as failing to provide the mandated reservation in recruitment or disregarding protections against discrimination, then the CCPD’s intervention would be justified. The Court also addressed the non-applicability of precedents cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the CCPD’s role is primarily recommendatory rather than adjudicatory.
Thus, the Court held that the order passed by the CCPD in the present case should be treated as an interim recommendation, not a mandatory direction, and must be considered by the authority considering the interpretation given under Section 76 of the Act.
[Mukesh Kumar v. National Power Training Institute, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2056, decided on 02-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Advocates
Mr. Prashant Shukla and Mr. Kartik Kumar, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Prernaa Singh, Advs. for R-2 and R-3.
