Association plea to implement 4% PwD quota in promotion
Bhubaneswar: Members of the Odisha Disabled Govt Employees' Welfare Association on Sunday expressed concern over the non-implementation of the statutory 4% reservation in promotions for employees with benchmark disabilities.
During a state-level meeting of the association, the members unanimously resolved to submit a memorandum to chief minister Mohan Charan Majhi on the issue.
"Despite the binding directive issued by Orissa high court on Jan 30 last year directing the state govt to implement the 4% reservation within three months, the order remains unimplemented. This delay not only violates the court's directive but also disregards the department of personnel and training office memorandum issued on May 17, 2022, as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in Siddaraju vs state of Karnataka, both of which affirm the right to reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities," said Hemant Kumar Subudhi, president of the association.
"The demand is rooted in the statutory provisions of subclause (1) of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. We want implementation and compliance with the legal provision," he added.
He said their pleas have not been heard even after repeated representations. "As a result, eligible employees with disabilities across various departments continue to be denied their rightful opportunities for career progression," he added.
An official of the social security and empowerment of persons with disabilities department said the demand is under active consideration of the govt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
A protracted battle between Trump and the US courts will only worsen trade uncertainty
If it weren't so damaging to the global economy, it would almost be tempting for observers outside the United States to grab their popcorn and watch the drama and chaos unfolding there, maybe with some schadenfreude. Alas, the outcome of the tussle between Donald Trump and the US judiciary has wide-ranging effects for the world. To recap, the US Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump does not have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs using 1970s emergency legislation. This was in response to two separate lawsuits by a coalition of US state governments and small businesses that relied on imported goods. Almost immediately, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a temporary stay on the trade court's decision, allowing the tariffs to stay in effect. For now. The next hearing is on June 5. The underlying issue which was taken up by the trade court warrants further deliberation, as it is a deeper question of the functioning of the US constitutional democracy. The court ruled against Trump's tariffs stating that it unlawfully invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and impose tariffs on nearly all US trading partners. The three-judge panel concluded that this Act is meant for urgent national security issues and that long-standing trade issues do not qualify as one. To do it lawfully, these tariffs would have had to be passed after approval by the US Congress, which would be prone to long discussions and scrutiny, which Trump seeks to avoid. This skirmish and the ensuing long-drawn battle of political manoeuvrings is a scathing indictment of the political and judicial system in the US. That the judiciary is subject to political takeover and can be openly criticised and even threatened in public by the President surely does not bode well for the process of checks and balances and having independent, but equal, branches of government. The executive has steamrolled both the legislature and judiciary in this episode. The strategy of this administration seems to be to flood the system with brazen extra-constitutional and unconstitutional executive orders, which will take time to be legally challenged and withdrawn. Across the country, in separate cases on a broad range of issues, there have been at least 180 judicial rulings that the White House has exceeded its constitutional authority or violated Congressional statutes, which has drawn public criticism by the administration. Many more have passed through. Back to trade, Trump is determined to win this battle one way or another. The White House has stated that if these rulings don't go in its favour, they are prepared to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, they have many other options at their disposal to disrupt trade through tariffs. Peter Navarro, Trump's chief trade advisor has said, 'So you can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way;' and has already lined up several legal alternatives. For starters, the current trade court ruling does not affect the tariffs on cars, auto parts, steel and aluminium, which were imposed using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962), which allows for trade barriers based on national security concerns. That can be revoked again, as everything can be argued to be a national security concern. Further, they could invoke Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 that allows for tariffs to protect against unfair trade practices by other countries, which was used to impose tariffs on China in the first term. A separate trade law from the 1930s allows the President to impose tariffs up to 50 per cent on imports from countries that 'discriminate' against the US. Thus, there's no shortage of options for Trump. The full range of tariffs on countries are now paused and due to resume sometime in July. While all of this domestic drama plays out, most countries, including India, might adopt a wait-and-watch approach before going out of the way to make concessions in a trade deal with the US. In cabinet meetings across countries, discussions will be raging on whether the US has less leverage now and if it would make sense to slow down on trade negotiations a bit. While the legal seesaw might not derail negotiations, it might shift positions on the negotiating table by a bit, given that the legitimacy of the tariffs is questioned by US courts. A protracted battle will only worsen uncertainty surrounding trade. Trade policy uncertainty, as captured by an index built by 'policy uncertainty' is at the highest level since the 1980s. To give you an idea of the extent, the uncertainty score under normal circumstances in 2017 was around 80, which rose to a peak of 1400 during Covid times. Under Trump's second term, it has reached 3300. All of this uncertainty severely dampens business sentiment. According to one study, trade policy uncertainty reduced investment in the US by about 1.5 per cent in 2018 (first trade war). Another study says that the uncertainty, by itself, is equivalent to a tariff rate of between 1.7 per cent and 8.7 per cent. The effect of uncertainty on other countries can be significant as well. India's trade and investment will take a beating due to this. Businesses relying on trade will be caught in a limbo, severely hampering decision making. Fresh investments will be stalled due to the uncertainty. Though Apple has decided to brave the storm and committed to an expansion of production in India, other companies might be waiting for greater clarity before investing, which might take years. The best way out of this for India remains for it to have a trade deal with its major trading partners. In this regard, the Australia FTA and the recently concluded FTA with the UK is excellent news. Though much more difficult now with a flaky regime, a trade deal with the US can overcome much of this uncertainty. Anupam Manur is a Professor of Economics at the Takshashila Institution, an independent think tank and school of public policy
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Governor Ravi approves bills allowing disabled nominations to local bodies
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has granted assent to bills that empower the state government to nominate persons with disabilities (PwDs) to positions in the municipal administration and rural development Minister MK Stalin took a dig at Ravi while acknowledging the governor's decision. 'The Governor has approved the bill for disabled people today ... It was expected as we passed it in the legislative resolution. Maybe he was afraid that we would go to court if he didn't give his assent,' Stalin told the bills, which amends two key state laws, was introduced and passed in the Assembly on April 16. It gives the government the authority to directly nominate PwDs to various departments of local governance. Prior to this, representation of PwDs in Tamil Nadu's local bodies was notably low, with only 35 individuals serving in urban local bodies, according to Ravi's assent marks a significant development, particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the governors' constitutional responsibilities. Governor Ravi had earlier withheld assent to several bills, leading the state to petition the Supreme Court. In a landmark judgment, the court criticised the Governor's inaction as unconstitutional and unlawful, and directed that specific timelines be followed when dealing with the disability-related bills were not part of the case before the Supreme Court, the Governor's approval is seen as a step towards respecting legislative processes in the wake of the court's bills were introduced by the Tamil Nadu government with the aim of addressing historical under-representation and ensuring that PwDs have a formal voice in grassroots amendments pertain to two key laws: the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. They authorise the state to nominate PwDs to a range of local bodies, including town panchayats, municipal councils, municipal corporations, village panchayats, panchayat union councils, and district panchayats.A key feature of the legislation is that it allows for direct nomination — bypassing the electoral process — thus reducing barriers to participation. Each local body must include at least one nominated PwD, with councils of more than 100 members required to have members will serve a term equal to that of elected representatives — generally five years — and will receive honoraria, allowances, and other benefits on par with elected councillors. However, they will not possess voting rights in council decisions; their role will be advisory and representative.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
MK Stalin's "Scared" Swipe As Tamil Nadu Governor Clears 2 Bills
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi cleared two Bills after a Supreme Court ruling criticised his prior blockage of legislation. The Bills promote disability inclusion in local bodies. Chennai: Nearly two months after a landmark Supreme Court verdict pulled him up for blocking Bills passed by the Assembly, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi today cleared two Bills, a month after the House passed them. Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government won a big victory in the top court in April, said the Governor's assent was "expected" and that he was "scared" the state government may approach the court again. The two Bills pave the way for the nomination of persons with disabilities to urban and local bodies in Tamil Nadu. Aimed at social inclusion, the Bills will impact and empower over 12,000 persons with disabilities. Chief Minister Stalin said the Governor's assent was the result of the Supreme Court ruling. "This assent was expected. The Governor would be scared that we would move the court again." In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had said the Governor's move to block 10 Bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary". The court had then used its special powers to clear the Bills. The DMK government welcomed the verdict, amid a larger debate on whether the Supreme Court can set a deadline for the President and Governors. The ruling by the bench of Justice JD Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said the Bills were passed by the Assembly twice and the Governor must have cleared them. Article 200 of the Constitution lays down the options before the Governor when a Bill passed by the state House is presented before him. The Governor can give his assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. The Governor can send the Bill back to the House or Houses for reconsideration of some provisions. If the House passes it again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can reserve for the President's consideration a Bill which he/she feels is at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is a matter of national importance. In its April order, the court prescribed timelines to exercise these options and said missing them would invite judicial scrutiny of the Governor's action. The court earmarked a one-month deadline for Governors to withhold assent to a Bill and reserve it for the President's review with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. When a Bill is reserved without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, this deadline will be three months. If a Bill is presented to a Governor after reconsideration by the state Assembly, he/she must clear it within a month. Any exercise of the Governor under Article 200, the court said, is amenable to judicial review. The court clarified that it is "in no way undermining the Governor's powers". "All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy." The Supreme Court's ruling effectively set a three-month deadline for Presidential assent to Bills, too. The court said the President's functions are amenable to judicial review under Article 201. Amid a debate over whether the top court ruling amounted to judicial overreach, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court last month and asked if timelines could be imposed on Governors. President Murmu asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office. "In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?" President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on the matter.
