The Delhi High Court has ruled that recommendations, including interim ones, issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under Section 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 are binding on the concerned authority unless there is a valid reason for not accepting them.
“...we are of the considered opinion that the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner in relation to the exercise undertaken by it under Section 75(1)(a)(b) of the 2016 Act will bind the authority concerned... however, such recommendation may not be acted upon... only in a situation where such an authority has valid reasons for not accepting a recommendation which are required to be conveyed to the Chief Commissioner as also to the person aggrieved.”
— Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Read also: Wikipedia Faces Legal Action Over Defamation: Delhi HC Rules Against Intermediary Claim
Background of the Case
- The appellant, a Deputy Director at the National Power Training Institute, suffered from a 70 percent permanent disability in his leg.
- He was transferred from the Corporate Office at Faridabad to Durgapur, which he challenged before the CCPD.
- The CCPD directed the institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance while the matter was pending.
- The institute approached the High Court, where a single judge set aside the CCPD’s order, ruling that CCPD cannot issue an interim order under Section 76.
- The appellant then filed an appeal challenging this single-judge decision.
Read also: Fake Ginger Hotels Websites Banned: Delhi HC Issues Permanent Injunction & Rs 20 Lakh Fine
Appellant's Argument:
- The appellant argued that the CCPD does have the authority under Sections 75 and 76 of the RPwD Act to make interim recommendations.
- He said CCPD can direct corrective steps to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities.
Respondent Institute’s Argument:
- The respondent institute claimed that the recommendations of CCPD under Section 76 are not binding.
- It also argued that CCPD does not have jurisdiction over internal administrative decisions like transfers or other service-related disputes.
The High Court confirmed that recommendations under Section 76 are binding on the concerned authorities. These authorities must take corrective and remedial measures unless there is a valid reason not to.
“...an employee with disabilities is transferred in administrative exigencies... such a situation may give rise to a valid reason for not accepting the recommendation... reasons are to be conveyed to the Chief Commissioner as also to the person aggrieved.”
The Court clarified that CCPD has the power to make interim recommendations or orders to prevent the violation of rights. The authority concerned is obligated to act on these interim recommendations unless it provides a valid reason for not doing so.
“...be it an interim order/recommendation or a final order... the authority concerned is under statutory obligation to take appropriate remedial measures... unless valid reasons for non-acceptance are communicated to the CCPD and the aggrieved person.
The Court observed that service matters like promotion, transfer, or pay scale are generally the domain of the employer. However, if such actions violate the rights of persons with disabilities under the 2016 Act, the CCPD can intervene.
“In a recruitment process, if provision reserving posts/vacancies as per RPwD Act 2016 is not made, it may amount to infringement of rights... and accordingly, CCPD’s interference will be permissible, justified, and within power.”
The High Court stated that the CCPD’s direction in this case should be treated as an interim recommendation under Section 76. The National Power Training Institute must consider this recommendation. If the institute chooses not to accept it, valid reasons must be communicated to both the CCPD and the appellant.
“In a situation where no such infringement is found and transfer is sought to be effected in the exigencies of administration... such transfer may not attract infringement of any right otherwise available to an employee with disability... therefore, in such a situation, the provisions of the 2016 Act will not be attracted.”
This judgment reinforces the statutory authority of the CCPD and ensures that the rights of persons with disabilities are protected even in administrative matters. The ruling also sets a clear guideline for institutions to follow when dealing with recommendations from the Chief Commissioner under the RPwD Act.
With these observations, the Court disposed of the petition.
Case title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors (LPA 980/2024)
