TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Promotion Upheld for Visually Impaired Employee; Appeal Dismissed Citing Disability Act's Non-Discrimination Clause.</h1> <h3>Union of India Versus Sanjay Kumar Jain</h3> Union of India Versus Sanjay Kumar Jain - 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 463, 2004 (6) SCC 708, 2004 (6) JT 318, 2004 (6) SCALE 64 Issues Involved:The legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India, affirming the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding promotion of an employee from Group-C to Group-B post based on medical fitness.Judgment Details:The respondent, while working in Group-C post of the Railways, applied for promotion to Group-B post but was found medically unfit due to visual handicap. The CAT allowed the respondent's application, citing provisions of The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which prohibits discrimination in promotion based on physical disability. The High Court upheld CAT's decision, considering Section 47(2) of the Act.In the appeal, it was argued that the proviso to Section 47(2) allows the appropriate Government to exempt establishments from the Act's provisions based on the nature of work. However, the respondent contended that both CAT and the High Court's judgments were correct.Section 47 of the Act prohibits discrimination in government employments and states that no promotion shall be denied based on disability. The proviso to Section 47(2) allows the Government to exempt establishments through notification, but this does not apply in the absence of such notification.The function of a proviso is to qualify or create an exception to the main provision, and it does not extend beyond the enactment it is attached to. The proviso to Section 47(2) cannot be used to import conditions not present in the main provision.The appeal was dismissed as the employer's intention to exclude certain establishments was not supported by relevant documents fulfilling the proviso's requirements. Without a notification from the appropriate Government, the Tribunal and High Court's decisions were upheld as legally sound.Overall, the appeal failed, and no costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 