VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2011 › High Court of Delhi

Laxmikant Vijayvargiya v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
4 April 2011
Bench
Sanjiv Khannaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 6529/2007

Judgment

SANJIV KHANNA, J APRIL 04, 2011 Sv/pk/dk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 4th January, 2011 Date of decision: 4th April, 2011 + W.P.(C) No.6529/2007 Laxmikant Vijayvargia … Petitioner Through Mr.Ranjan Mani, Adv. Versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Ors. … Respondents Through Mr. A.K.Roy, Advocate for R-1. Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC for R-2 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES DIPAK MISRA, CJ The petitioner, an orthopedically handicapped person with 50% disability of lower limbs, who is an employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), the respondent No.1 herein, has prayed to command the employer to pay transport allowance as per the Government of India, Ministry of Finance order dated 3.10.1997. Quite apart from the said prayer, a relief is also sought to direct the Union of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises to amend its order dated 5.9.2003 so that the provisions regarding transport allowance payable to eligible disabled employees governed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance Order No.21(1)/97/E.II (B) of 3.10.1997, as amended, are extended with no additional restrictions to the eligible disabled persons of Public Sector Undertakings including the first respondent with retrospective effect from 1.8.1997; and further to command the employer to increase the reimbursement of conveyance expenditure payable to petitioner and other eligible disabled employees to twice the normal limits specified in the Rules under respondent No.1"s scheme for the eligible employees for owning and maintaining a vehicle for official duties and to extend the said benefit with retrospective effect from the date of joining of the disabled employee or from the date of inception of the said scheme. 2. As set forth in the petition, the petitioner joined the respondent company in May, 2002 and has been posted at the Company"s unit at Bhopal. The said unit employs more than 70 disabled persons in posts ranging from Peon to Additional General Manager. 3. The second respondent is in-charge of formulation of policy guidelines pertaining to Public Sector Enterprises and also, issuing of the guidelines to Public Sector Enterprises. The enactment, namely, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, "the 1995 Act") came into force on 1.1.1996 guaranteeing equal opportunities in employment for persons with disabilities and also special schemes by the appropriate Governments to ensure employment of persons with disabilities. The respondent No.4, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure issued an order dated 3.10.1997, Annexure P1, which prescribes grant of transport allowance for Central Government employees to compensate them for the cost incurred on account of commuting between the place of residence and place of duty and further stipulates that Central Government employees who are blind or orthopaedically handicapped with disability of the lower limbs are to be paid Transport Allowance double the normal rates prescribed therein. 4. By virtue of the order, the conveyance allowance provided for disabled persons in the earlier Government of India, Ministry of Finance circulars, Annexure P2, stood abolished. The order of 3.10.1997 makes the provisions for disabled persons applicable only to persons who are blind or orthopaedically handicapped with disability of the lower limbs, but the persons who have hearing impairment or the persons who are orthopaedically handicapped with disability of upper extremities and persons with low vision are excluded from the said provisions. The said exclusion is discriminatory and all persons with disabilities are to be included. It is averred that vide O.M. No. 2(42)/97-DPE(WC) dated 4.3.1998, the respondent No.2 extended

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.