Punjab High Court orders reinstatement of disabled as clerk

Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court, on an intervention made by the lawyers of Human Rights Law Network, has ordered reinstatement of a physically disabled person as clerk in the local civil court.

The petitioner, Ritesh, was a physically challenged person who successfully competed to get appointed as a clerk by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karnal against the post reserved for physically disabled persons.

Notwithstanding the fact that due to the nature of disability the petitioner could not write with his own hand and was provided assistance of a writer in the examination conducted for the selection of the subject posts, his services were terminated apparently due to his inability to perform the duties as a clerk.

The petitioner was  a post graduate in information technology with various additional distinguished qualifications, and was well conversant with the computer operations also.

The hon’ble high court on examining the case opined that there was  plenty of work to be done on computers in a Sessions Division like preparation of daily cause lists of all the courts, certified copies of the judgments/order etc, which could be conveniently assigned to a computer savvy person like Ritesh and ordered for his reinstatement and also for the PWD department to provide for a ramp and for the office to provide a congenial working atmosphere for the petitioner.

Read the full judgement here

Denial of rations to BPL people denial of Right to Food, Right to Life: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: In another landmark interim order, Justice S Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court reinforced the need for increased delivery and oversight of life-saving food and maternal health entitlements to the vulnerable populations in the Nation’s Capital.  The petition, Premlata w/o Ram Sagar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, W.P. Civ. 7687/2010, involves six destitute pregnant and lactating women who reside in Nangloi, a western slum of Delhi, and have been denied food rations and reproductive and child health benefits since at least August 2009.  During the pendency of litigation, numerous issues were brought to the Court’s attention underlining serious problems with issuance and renewal of ration cards and delivery of health benefits under the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS). Petitioners also placed on record a copy of the Samajik Suvidha Sangam Survey commissioned by the Delhi Government showing that 55 percent of Delhi's poor and vulnerable populations remain “un-carded", i.e. without a ration card.

Numerous interim orders have directed the Delhi Government to conduct “camps” where aggrieved card holders have had their ration cards sorted and reauthorized, increase monitoring and delivery of rations to Fair Price Shops, constitute a grievance redressal hotline, and ensure functionality of vigilance committee. The Union of India has also been ordered to pay Rs 5,000 to each of the Petitioners for delay in payment of financial assistance under NMBS.

During the last hearing, when questioned as to the present procedure for issuing new BPL applications, the Government acknowledged that 'no fresh BPL cards' are being issued by the Food & Supplies Department due to a 'maximum limit of BPL cards' fixed by a decision of the Union of India and Cabinet of Government of Delhi. Taking cognizance of this action as inherently unconstitutional, the Court stated:

“10. This Court is unable to appreciate how the Capital city of Delhi, with a growing population and constant influx of a large number of migrants can abide by a ‘cap’ on BPL cards.  With growing persons in need of BPL cards, there cannot be any ‘caps’ imposed by the Central Government/Planning Commission which disables the GNCTD from proceeding to issue fresh BPL cards.  Denial of a rational card to a BPL person is virtually a denial of his or her right to food and thereby the right to life under the Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Delhi Government and Union of India were ordered to jointly meet within four weeks time to resolve the denial of fresh BPL cards for eligible persons.  The Court further expressed concern "that apart from the Petitioners who have approached this Court there could be many others similarly placed in need of redress" and ordered a government official be appointed to address all remaining grievances within the community.  The matter is next listed for 27th July, 2011.

Premlata holds great promise in ensuring a more transparent and efficient delivery system of rations to India's poor, and reinforce the life-saving link between access to food and reproductive health and safe motherhood. A copy of the 13.05.11 order is attached.

Contact:
Sukti Dhital
Reproductive Rights Unit
Human Rights Law Network
sfdhital@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Delhi HC pulls IRDA on insurance cos denying benefits to HIV patients

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) on a PIL challenging the insurance companies’ "unreasonable and unconstitutional" mandate to deny insurance benefits to HIV positive people.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra issued a notice to the IRDA through the Government of India and demanded a reply to the petition that asked for a court order to the insurance regulator to direct all the companies to consider people suffering with HIV/AIDS on a par with others.

The Petition, filed by activist Dr. Rajeev Sharma, claimed that the exclusion clause was in complete violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of the said class of people, who suffered not only illegal discrimination but also financial problems as a large number of them belonged to economically weaker sections. The insurance sector is one area where PLHAs are discriminated against. Many existing insurance policies include an exclusion clause specifically excluding insurance benefits of HIV/AIDS and related treatment. Thus, when an existing policy holder is subsequently diagnosed with HIV/AIDS during the policy period they are denied the benefits of their existing insurance policy.

HRLN Advocates Tariq Adeeb and Pankaj Sinha argued before the court that only one out of the 24 insurance companies listed with the IRDA provided insurance to the HIV positive people and that most of them also withdrew the policies in case of the existing policy holders getting afflicted subsequently.

“The discrimination is unreasonable and there was no nexus between the classification of people living with HIV/AIDS and the insurance benefits,” stated the PIL.

For further Details, Contact:
Tariq Adeeb or Pankaj Sinha (Advocate)
+91 93106 77131
+91 99102 47816