The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) for insensitive and apathetic approach by denying equal transfer opportunities to employees with disabilities.
The admonition came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed amendment in transfer policies to ensure disabled employees were given the same number of transfer options as their able-bodied counterparts, along with necessary changes to make office locations accessible, opportunities to be posted in their home districts, and, wherever possible, at a location of their choice.
Allowing a writ petition filed by two engineers with locomotor disabilities, Justice Brar directed HVPNL and other authorities to “ensure that the office location where an employee with disabilities is posted has requisite assistance readily available; and the distance between residence and workplace be considered before dealing with transfer matters pertaining to employees with disabilities”. The needful was directed to be done within two months, followed by a compliance report to be filed in the Registry.
The matter was brought to Justice Brar’s notice after the employees sought the setting aside of a communication made by HVPNL, whereby employees with benchmark disabilities were provided fewer options of offices for transfer than their able-bodied colleagues.
The Bench was told that the first petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer at Rohtak with 40 per cent locomotor disability, while the second was an Assistant Executive Engineer serving in Daulatabad with 80 per cent permanent locomotor disability. Both contended that they were covered under the ‘Protected Category’ of the Model Online Transfer Policy notified by the State on May 23, which HVPNL had adopted in entirety.
An online transfer drive was initiated by the Chief Engineer on July 16. But it was found that while able-bodied employees were given 392 transfer options, while the first petitioner with benchmark disability was given only 15. Similarly, second petitioner able-bodied counterparts had 127 options, while he was shown only six.
Justice Brar asserted the matter had to be viewed in the light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the applicable transfer policy. “Ex facie, the petitioners have been provided with lesser number of office options for transfer compared to their able-bodied counterparts, which is not backed by any provision in the applicable transfer policy dated July 3 … However, the respondents have even denied equal treatment to the petitioners, let alone special considerations,” Justice Brar observed.
The Bench added the “insensitive and apathetic, as well as manifestly illegal, approach” adopted by the respondent-HVPNL was contrary to not only the law in terms of Act of 2016 and policy dated July 3, but also the principles of equity.
Referring to the constitutional dimensions, Justice Brar added: “The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term.”
Finding the approach to be “in contravention of the applicable Rules and … ridden with mala fide,” the court directed the State and other respondents “to amend their respective transfer policies”.
