Govt should ensure disabled-friendly infra in public places, rules Kerala HC
Kochi: High court, in a significant judgment, held that the state govt must ensure that infrastructure facilities in public places are accessible to persons with disabilities, and observed that if the govt fails to provide such facilities, a govt servant cannot be compelled to work in a manner that goes against their physical ability.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court was considering a petition filed by the state challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's (KAT) order allowing an interdepartmental transfer to T Rajeev, a senior grade typist in the motor vehicles department (MVD), Thrissur, on account of his physical disability, and dismissing the decision to reduce his salary.
Rajeev had sought a transfer to the irrigation department, citing his inability to climb the upper floor of the building where the MVD office is located.
He requested to be appointed as an LD typist in the irrigation department's Thalappilly subdivision office, which functions from the ground floor of the same building. The govt rejected his application, prompting him to approach the KAT, which in 2020 directed consideration of his request in light of the provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
While the govt subsequently permitted the transfer, it reduced his salary from that of a senior grade typist to that of an LD typist, despite his claim to the higher scale.
This led to further litigation, and the tribunal held that Rajeev was entitled to retain his original salary, and any reduction would violate the provisions of the Disabilities Act. The state then moved HC against the tribunal's orders.
Examining the matter, HC observed that it was the govt's statutory duty to provide a physical environment conducive to Rajeev's abilities. Instead of addressing the issue, it was Rajeev who found a practical solution by seeking an interdepartmental transfer.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
HC emphasised that the govt cannot abdicate its responsibility under the Disabilities Act.
The division bench set aside the interdepartmental transfer. It clarified that Rajeev cannot be forced to take the staircase to the upper floor and must be provided with a working environment suitable to his condition. The court also directed the state to issue appropriate orders within a month and continue paying Rajeev the salary he is entitled to.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
More water: High court rejects Punjab's plea against May 2 water order, says state free to approach Centre
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed the Punjab govt's plea to modify its May 6 order, directing the state to comply with the May 2 decision of the meeting —chaired by the Union home secretary—to release additional water to Haryana from the Bhakra Dams. However, the court said Punjab could refer the matter to the central govt for further consideration. "The state of Punjab is not left remediless, since it can always make a reference to the central govt in terms of Explanation – II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules as per law...," the HC held. Regarding Punjab's ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to the govt of India via a letter dated April 29 by Haryana, the HC held that the letter dated April 29 does not relate to any dissent by Haryana but contains a request to the chairman of BBMB to refer the matter to the central govt for execution of the minutes of the meeting dated April 28 of the technical committee of the board. "As such, this letter cannot be treated as a reference to the central govt. Consequently, Haryana's letter dated April 29 does not fall within the realm of 'material fact', non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential," the HC held in its detailed order released on Saturday. Regarding Punjab's contention that the record of discussions/minutes of the meeting dated May 2, presided over by the Union home secretary, was non-existent, the HC clarified that since it was not a reference in terms of Explanation – II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, the very foundation for raising the said ground does not exist, and it is of no avail to Punjab. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tired of High Power Bills? Plug in This Device elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Learn More Undo In this case, the Punjab govt approached the HC seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order, which directed the state to comply with the May 2 meeting decision on releasing additional water to Haryana from the Bhakra Dam. The state claimed that the direction in question was passed on account of concealment of material facts by BBMB in the petition. According to Punjab's plea, in case of any policy decision or where the rights of any state are affected, the matter is to be referred to the central govt through the chairman of the board. However, despite the matter being referred to the central govt for deciding the issue under Rule 7 of BBMB Rules 1974, and no decision thereupon being taken, the board again convened a meeting on April 30, wherein, without any adjudication by the competent authority, it decided the issue of releasing 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Maharashtra has big dams, but we face water imbalance: CM
Nagpur: Maharashtra's deep regional water disparities persist despite hosting some of India's largest irrigation projects, said chief minister Devendra Fadnavis at the Vidarbha Pani Parishad. "Big dams alone can't resolve the issue. The real solution lies in small, sustainable conservation structures," he stated, advocating for localised water planning. He highlighted the success of Jalyukt Shivar under the Baliraja Project, which ensured convergence of departments under district collectors, boosting participation and impact. Fadnavis also backed the Centre's move to suspend the Indus Water Treaty, calling it the "deadliest blow" to Pakistan and a precursor to "Operation Sindoor." He warned that water wars are no longer distant possibilities, urging wise use and conservation amid mounting national and global water stress. "Water has been at the heart of civilisations — from the Saraswati to Sindhu to African rivers," said Fadnavis, adding that in modern times, unchecked use, especially in agriculture, has become a major concern. "Whenever water availability rises, we shift to cash crops and overuse it. We must act wisely in usage and conservation." Speakaing about Jalyukt Shivar, he said, "Unlike earlier fragmented schemes split across 14 departments, this one was coordinated under district collectors. All officials, irrespective of departments, reported directly to the collector. This streamlined planning, execution, and participation." With Rs700 crore raised through public contribution, the scheme benefited over 20,000 villages, notably in Marathwada, improving groundwater levels. A 2018 HC petition led to an expert panel, which verified the scheme's success. In 2020, the Centre's Groundwater Report confirmed Maharashtra as the only state with consecutive annual water level rises. "Even with just 75% rainfall, we faced no scarcity," he said. Among key projects, Fadnavis cited the Wainganga-Nalganga river-linking initiative — a 500km project spanning seven districts in Vidarbha — aimed at redirecting surplus water toward the Godavari basin. Similar efforts include five other river-linking schemes and the Tapi Water Recharge Project, set to shift 35 TMC water to saline-affected areas. Since 2014, the state has completed 90 irrigation projects, including the near-completion Gosikhurd Dam. Post-2017, it has shifted to piped distribution systems, saving 8 TMC of water and boosting efficiency. Fadnavis also praised Israel's water practices, such as micronutrient delivery and precision irrigation, as models being adopted in Maharashtra. He flagged river and nullah pollution, attributing 90% of it to untreated domestic waste. "Industries get blamed, but citizens are major contributors," he said, urging better sewage systems in cities like Nagpur, Pune, and Mumbai. Warning of rising inter-district water conflicts like Nashik vs Marathwada, Fadnavis stressed that solutions, not demands, are the way forward. Earlier, Nagpur University's acting vice-chancellor Madhavi Khode Chaware inaugurated the Wainganga Water Exhibition at Vanamati. Over 150 students, scholars, and activists participated, showcasing posters, research papers, and models focused on water conservation and sustainability. (Inputs by Krisha Panchmatia) * * * * **************** THE WATER STORY * Rs 700 crore raised by villagers under Jalyukt Shivar Yojana 20,000 villages benefited under Jalyukt Shivar 90 irrigation projects completed since 2014 8 TMC water saved through efficient usage methods 3%: Water absorption rate in Maharashtra, (compared to 22% in Uttar Pradesh) 56 TMC water from Konkan redirected to Godavari 35 TMC water under Tapi Water recharge Project 500 km new river being created under Wainganga–Nalganga river linking
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Water sharing row: HC dismisses Punjab's May 14 plea over release of more water to Haryana
The court had disposed of the petition on May 26 and the detailed order was released on June 7 The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition from the Punjab government seeking modification of the May 6 order that allowed the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). The Punjab government had filed the petition on May 14 arguing that direction was an outcome of concealment of material facts by the BBMB, Haryana and the Centre. 'This court disposed of the matter (on May 6) in the backdrop of emergent situation, which had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. With this urgency in mind, this court finally disposed of the matter... (on May 6),' the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel said, dismissing the plea from Punjab. The petition was disposed of on May 26, and the order was released on June 7 evening. The controversy erupted on April 28 when the Haryana government's demand for additional water from the Bhakra Dam was approved by the BBMB despite opposition from Punjab. The Punjab government refused to accept the decision and deployed police at Nangal dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. The BBMB was established by the Union power ministry in 1966 under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and regulates water distribution from Bhakra, Nangal, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan. The Union home ministry stepped in on May 2 and directed that additional water be released to Haryana. However, the BBMB said that the order could not be complied with as Punjab Police prevented board officials from discharging their duties. The BBMB approached the high court on May 5, seeking the court's intervention and demanding that Punjab Police be withdrawn from BBMB. It was during these proceedings, on May 6, the high court ordered that the May 2 decision of the Union home secretary be implemented, whereby Haryana was to get additional water. However, Punjab did not allow implementation of the May 6 order claiming that 'not a drop could be spared'. HC reiterated its order on May 9 and also sought names of Punjab officials who did not allow the implementation of the HC order. However, it was also not implemented. Finally, on May 14, Punjab filed a plea seeking recall of the May 6 order, which has been dismissed by the HC now. Lawyers said, practically, this decision has 'no impact on the ground' as a new water-sharing cycle has started from May 21. The high court said that on May 29, Haryana wrote a letter to the Centre seeking its intervention in the backdrop of Punjab's opposition. But the letter merely seeks implementation of the May 28 resolution of BBMB allowing more water to Haryana. The court said that this letter can't be treated as a reference, which, as per rule 7 of the BBMB Act, a dissenting state can raise in the event of a dispute. 'This letter does not fall within the realm of 'material fact' (which Punjab was claiming) non-disclosure of which is inconsequential,' the court said. The court also said that Punjab has argued that since the May 29 'reference' was pending with the Centre, BBMB was not competent to decide the issue of water sharing. However, this issue does not arise as the May 29 letter or 'reference' of the Haryana government to the Centre was not made under Rule 7 of the BBMB Act. 'More so, Punjab is not left remediless, since it can always make a reference to Central government in terms of Rule 7,' the court said adding that Punjab was given liberty to approach Centre as per rules. But has not been availed by the state. It further added that with regard to Punjab's argument that the Union home secretary was not competent to take the May 2 decision on the issue and since Haryana's request of May 29 has been held to be 'not in terms of Rule 7,' the very foundation of raising the said ground does not exist,' it added.
