Latest news with #SunitaAgarwal
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Denial discriminatory': HC directs CRPF to promote HIV/AIDS +ve woman staffer
Stating that the denial of promotion to an HIV/AIDS positive woman employee of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was 'discriminatory', the Gujarat High Court has directed the CRPF to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Ministerial), while also declaring as 'ultra vires' the provisions of a 2008 Standing Order and the 2011 CRPF Assistant Commandant Recruitment Rules that were cited in denying promotion to the petitioner. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray, in its August 5 order, noted that the denial or discontinuation or unfair treatment in relation to employment is 'clearly prohibited' under the HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Act, 2017. While stating that the Act has been enacted to ensure equal opportunity of employment and with the need to protect and secure the human rights of persons who are HIV/AIDS positive, the court directed the CRPF to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date her juniors were promoted. The court said, 'The petitioner shall be entitled to full benefits including continuity of service to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date the juniors to the petitioners were/was promoted. The petitioner shall also be considered for promotion to the (subsequent) post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) by placing her in the gradation list along with her juniors and a special DPC (Department Promotional Committee) be conducted to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the said post…' Granting time of two months, the court said, 'Upon consideration, if the petitioner is found fit on all other aspects, she shall be given promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) from the date the junior(s) to her have been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2024-25… (The respondent is) required to revise pay and re-fix the pay-scale of the petitioner from the date of her entitlement to promotion on the post of Inspector (Ministerial) and further on the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) and shall pay the arrears including all consequential benefits to the said posts.' The bench considered the arguments put forth by the petitioner as well as the advocates representing the respondents and stated that the case 'presented a very sorry state of affairs at the ends of the respondent authorities including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in perpetuating discrimination by not bringing necessary amendments in the Standing Order No.04/2008 and the recruitment/appointment Rules, which prescribe blanket restriction for promotion or appointment to persons who are not kept in medical category Shape I, specifically HIV/AID +ve personnel.' The court order stated that the court has reached 'an irresistible conclusion' that the petitioner has been discriminated in denial of promotion to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of her entitlement on the premise that she was in Shape III category in the medical report dated April 16, 2015. The petitioner had contended that she was promoted to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) only on August 23, 2019, and therefore also denied the subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial). The court noted that 'no efforts seem to have been made' to bring the Standing Order and the Rules governing the services of CRPF personnel in line with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 so as to remove 'discrimination' against the 'protected persons' within the meaning of the Act. Declaring the 2008 Standing Order as well as the Rule 5 of the Central Reserve Police Force, Assistant Commandant (Ministerial), Group 'A' Post, Recruitment Rules, 2011, as 'ultra vires', the court said that it was 'contrary to the National HIV Counseling and Testing Guidelines, 2024 as also discriminatory and arbitrary, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.' The court order stated that the clauses are 'required to be suitably amended to remove any kind of discrimination, directly or indirectly, expressly or by effect which denies or withholds any benefit, opportunity or advantage from any person or category of persons being HIV/AIDS +ve person(s)… by bringing suitable amendments as early as possible. For the purpose of medical assessment of HIV/AIDS +ve person.' 'SHAPE-1' signifies that a combatised serving personnel is fully fit for all duties. The acronym SHAPE represents: S (Psychological), H (Hearing), A (Appendages), P (Physical Capacity), and E (Eyesight). A SHAPE-1 rating indicates that all these aspects are assessed as being in good condition. Functional capacity for duties in the CPF under each factor is graded in the scale from 1 to 5, indicating declining functional efficiency and increasing employability limitations.
Hindustan Times
05-08-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Gujarat HC orders CRPF to promote HIV-positive officer in ministerial posts
The Gujarat high court has ordered the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to promote a woman officer to the Inspector rank, ruling that the force could not stop her promotion to the ministerial post merely on the ground that she was HIV-positive. The Gujarat high court ordered CRPF to promote her as Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from the date her juniors were promoted, and consider her for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) The high court ordered CRPF to promote her as Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from the date her juniors were promoted, and consider her for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) by placing her in the gradation list along with her juniors. A special departmental promotion committee should be conducted to consider the petitioner's candidature. 'Upon consideration, if the petitioner is found fit on all other aspects, she shall be given promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) from the date the junior(s) to her have been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2024-25,' a bench of chief justice Sunita Agarwal and justice Pranav Trivedi said in its verdict on Monday. The detailed judgment was uploaded to the high court's website on Tuesday. The court ruled that the entire exercise should be completed within two months. The petitioner, a CRPF officer who was diagnosed HIV-positive in 2013, was denied promotion on multiple occasions despite being medically classified as Shape-I — the highest fitness level — between 2017 and 2022. In 2024, she was temporarily placed in Shape-II for 12 weeks, despite a CD4 count of 562. On that basis, her name was excluded from the list of officers considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial). 'Applying the medical category Shape I as an essential (pre-requisite) condition for promotion of the force personnel in all groups/ranks/cadres in the CPMF and, thus, denying promotion to HIV/AIDS +ve persons who are 'protected persons' within the HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Act' 2017 resulted in arbitrary exercise of powers at the ends of the respondents,' the court said. The CRPF had tried to argue that medical classification in Shape-I was a mandatory requirement for promotion and cited Standing Orders and Recruitment Rules. It also sought to reason that promotion could not be claimed as a matter of right and that the petitioner's exclusion was based on applicable policy and medical reports. It also claimed that while she had been temporarily upgraded to Shape-I in the past, she did not appear for timely review medical examinations as required, including in 2024, which affected her eligibility. The officer, on the other hand, said that she had been consistently declared fit for service, with CD4 counts well above the clinical minimum of 200 cells/microlitre, and that she had been arbitrarily downgraded in the medical system without consistency. She said she was denied promotion despite meeting the eligibility and superior Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. She also argued that applying the same physical medical standards to ministerial staff — who do not serve in combat or field duties — was irrational and discriminatory. The bench agreed with the petitioner's arguments. The court ruled that the current rules and standing orders placed an unlawful restriction on DPCs by denying them discretion to assess overall fitness. It stated: 'It seems that HIV/AIDS +ve persons are being treated in the force as the persons suffering from illness of permanent nature and, as such, they are either being declared unfit by DPC even though they are otherwise fit for promotion or not even included in the list placed before the DPC for consideration for promotion on the ground that they do not fall in Shape-I category. This is what has exactly happened with the petitioner herein,' the court observed.
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC asks 8 municipal corps to install cloth bag vending machines, plastic bottle collecting machines
To ensure that 'effective steps' are taken to implement the Swachh Bharat Mission, the Gujarat High Court has recommended that eight Municipal Corporations in the state take 'proactive measures' by emulating the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)'s initiative of installing cloth bag vending machines and reverse vending machines for collecting plastic bottles. The HC has also directed the State Monitoring Committee of GPCB and the Commissioner of Municipalities to file a joint response regarding the installation of Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) and the engagement of plastic waste processing units in municipalities across the state. On July 18, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Panchal in February 2023, seeking directions to ensure 'proper sanitation and disposal of waste on Girnar hilltop.' The PIL had contended that the area had become a 'dumping ground' with trash scattered all over. The court recommended that Municipal Corporations conduct workshops in schools run by civic bodies to create awareness and ensure effective implementation of the Swachh Bharat Mission. In its oral order, uploaded on Monday, the Gujarat High Court said, 'Eight Municipal Corporations in the State shall make an endeavour to emulate the initiative taken by the GPCB in installation of cloth bag vending machines and reverse vending machines (for collecting plastic bottles) in all key areas to be identified by them, specifically where there is a large footfall of the general public. The Municipalities which are managing tourist places like Dwarka and Somnath in the State shall also draw an example to set up such machines in the areas of major tourist footfall.' The Unit Head of the Plastic Waste Cell of the GPCB, in an affidavit before the HC, stated that as part of the 'strict implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, to promote eco-friendly practices,' the GPCB had installed Cloth Bag Vending Machines in key areas of Ahmedabad and Surat, and 24 Reverse Vending Machines for collecting plastic bottles across the state to encourage proper disposal and recycling. The affidavit further stated that, in compliance with the HC's April 25 order, the GPCB had inspected 91 municipalities, out of which 65 have installed MRFs and 32 have signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with registered plastic waste processors. The GPCB informed the court that of the 65 MRFs, three are still non-operational, 39 are manually operated, 21 are mechanized, and five operate through both manual and mechanical means. It also informed the court that 88 show-cause notices have been issued to municipalities 'either for non-installation of MRF Facility and/or non-signing of MoU with a registered Plastic Waste Processor.' In its oral order, the court directed the State Monitoring Committee and the Commissioner of Municipalities to hold meetings with Chief Officers of the municipalities for further implementation. The order stated: '…hold a meeting with the Chief Officers, Nagarpalika (Municipality) giving them a timeline to ensure installation of MRF facility and engage plastic waste processing units registered with the GPCB. The Chief Officer of Nagarpalika shall be personally made liable with penal consequences, in case of defiance of the timeline, which shall be duly worked out by the State Monitoring Committee. The joint response of the State Monitoring Committee and the Commissioner of Municipality shall be brought before this Court in a personal affidavit of the Commissioner of Municipalities (Administration) to be filed on the next date fixed.' The matter will be next heard on September 12.
New Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Gujarat HC imposes Rs 1.4 crore cost on 7 unscrupulous' petitioners over PIL
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has imposed a collective cost of Rs 1.4 crore on a group of seven unscrupulous litigants for filing a PIL seeking to cancel the development permission granted to a builder out of personal vendetta without disclosing their credentials. The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray dismissed the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs 20,00,000, which is to be paid by each of the (seven) petitioners. The amount will go to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which shall be utilised for the benefit of orphan children, it said in its order uploaded on its website on Monday. During the hearing of the matter last Friday, the court orally observed that there is no place for such unscrupulous litigants who have not disclosed their credentials in the writ petition. Who are these people, nobody knows. What business they are doing, what their occupation is, nothing. They are all independent persons, so (a cost of) Rs 20 lakh each, the court said. It expressly said that the question of entertaining the grievance would arise only when they disclose their credentials. The only description in the array of parties in a PIL is not sufficient to maintain it, it said. Our rules say and the law of PIL also says that whosoever is coming to the court as a public interest litigant, the responsibility is on that person to show that he is a public spirited person, it added.
