Well i am not sure what as what you are pointing out. As far as i understand, a person working in any sector needs not face any difficulty to step up in higherarchy. Will you make yourself more clear to enable me to understand it more profoundly? Thanks and regards. Nikhil Jain
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 rajesh asudani wrote : >A basic right? An interesting observation. Sure disability is not a ground >to deny it, however, what if the work of the post acquired after promotion >is incapable of being performed with a given disability, with the given >level of technology? Would the norm of supernumerary post of section 47[2] >come in or exemption contemplated under proviso to it would be applicable! > >Fair construction of statutes as it stands today, in my opinion, does not >warrant supernumerary post in case of promotion, and unless the said >excemption is obtained, promotion can not be legally denied. This also seems >to be the approach of high court decision cited in the article. However, >things do take different turn when it comes to perceptions of promoting >authorities, particularly in cases like those cited in article. The fact >that the disability is acquired in service or in the course of performing >duties should also in my opinion be given due weightage. > >And besides, the employee ought to be considered for posts higher in >hierarchy than post in contention after due period, for this notion of >notional promotion may be introduced. > > >Rajesh. >----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nikhil Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> >Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:57 PM >Subject: Re: [AI] The only disability in life is a bad attitude > > >Hi, >Promotion is a regular activity. Disability does not come in between it. >Just write an aplication to the Chief Commissioner Disability, stating your >problem; you will surely get your issue solved. Send a copy to UGC and HRD >ministery. I just would like to ensure you that promotion is your basic >right and no one can take it away from you. >Regards. >Nikhil Jain > > >On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 Dattu Agarwal Agarwal wrote : > >dear list, > > denial of promotion on the grounds of disability is really unjust and >unconstitutional. > > I am also facing the same problem. > > I have put up twenty years of service as a lecturer in a Government >P.U.College my siniority has been over looked merely because i am a visually >impaired > > The other lecturers who are junior to me have been promoted. > > there is no response from the government to my representations. > > if this is the fait, it is very difficult for the visually challenged to >come up in their carier. > > it seems the respective governments have not taken congnisense of the >persons with disability act. > > regards > > dattu agarwal. > > > >Aruni Arsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >The only disability in life is a bad attitude > > > >The hindu business line opinion > > > >"No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his > >disability... " > > > > > > > >Disability is a matter of perception, says Martina Navratilova. "If you can > >do just one thing well, you're needed by someone." Tragically, however, the > > > >disabled often face inequity. > > > > > > > >One such instance comes to light through a recent verdict of the Madras >High > >Court in J. John Wincent vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, The Chief > >Commissioner > > > >of Excise (Cadre Controlling Authority), The Chairman, Central Board of > >Excise and Customs and The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal. > > > > > > > >John had joined the services of the Department as a Lower Division Clerk in > >May 1990. "Thereafter, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year > >1995. > > > > > > > >Consequent to the re-designation of the post in the year 2002, he is >holding > >the post of Tax Assistant," reads the text of the judgment dated April 27. > > > > > > > >John, by virtue of his experience, made a representation to the Department > >to consider him for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise >and > > > >Customs. "However, the respondents did not consider the representation of > >the petitioner and he was informed that, being a physically challenged > >person, > > > >he would not be able to do the arduous job of Inspector of Central Excise > >and Customs." How unfortunate! > > > > > > > >There were more people like John who had been refused promotion on account > >of disability. They had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, > >which > > > >issued directions to the Department to consider the applications of the > >physically challenged persons for the post of Inspector of Central Excise > >and Customs. > > > > > > > >What happened thereafter? The Department called upon John `to undergo > >endurance test of cycling and walking.' And `he was found to have performed > >the same > > > >successfully.' Yet, in 2004, John was rejected on the ground that he did >not > >have `the prescribed height'. > > > > > > > >He approached the Tribunal for remedy. Disappointingly, it held that there > >was no scope for relaxing the standards prescribed in the Recruitment >Rules, > > > >and rejected John's application. Aggrieved, he took his case before the >High > >Court. > > > > > > > >Speaking for John, his counsel V. Raghavachari said that the Tribunal had > >erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the benefits conferred > >under > > > >Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, > >Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 in the matter of > >promotion. > > > >Also, at the time of joining the service John's height was 160 cm, as > >substantiated by the physical fitness certificate. For the Department, it > >was R. > > > >Santhanam who argued, and he reiterated the contentions earlier urged >before > >the Tribunal. > > > > > > > >Equality for disabled > > > > > > > >"The short but core point for consideration in this writ petition is: > >whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Inspector of > >Central > > > >Excise and Customs in spite of the disability suffered by him during the > >course of his employment?" observed Justices P. D. Dinakaran and R. >Sudhakar > >of > > > >the Madras High Court, who heard the case. > > > > > > > >"All countries today need to apply affirmative action to ensure that the > >women and the disabled are equal to all of us," said the court, citing > >Nelson Mandela. > > > >Though the Constitution of India does not specifically prescribe > >discrimination on the ground of `disability', it does contain > >non-discriminatory provisions > > > >that guarantee equality and equal opportunities for all citizens as in > >Articles 14 and 16, pointed out the court. > > > > > > > >"The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights > >and Full Participation) Act, 1995 treats disability as a civil right rather > >than > > > >a health and welfare issue, and recognises the need to integrate persons > >with disabilities with the mainstream of society by some normative action." > > > > > > > >Section 47 of this Act, which Raghavachari referred to is titled > >`Non-discrimination in Government employments'. Sub-section 1 says, "No > >establishment shall > > > >dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability > >during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring > >disability is > > > >not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other > >post with the same pay scale and service benefits. > > > > > > > >Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against > >any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is > >available > > > >or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier." > > > > > > > >Sub-section 2, which is more relevant to the case on hand, says: "No > >promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his > >disability: Provided > > > >that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work > >carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such > >conditions, > > > >if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment > > from the provisions of this section." > > > > > > > >Instructive precedents > > > > > > > >The highly educative verdict refers to precedents such as Shri Suhas Vasant > >Karnik vs Union of India and Other, in which the Bombay High Court examined > > > >whether a person suffering from blindness could be declared ineligible for > >seeking promotion. > > > > > > > >It had held that the Government had a "Constitutional obligation to > >encourage participation of the visually handicapped persons in activities >of > >the bank > > > >on par with other members of the staff and consider the cases of visually > >handicapped for promotion fairly and equitably." > > > > > > > >Section 47(2) had come under test in Union of India vs Sanjay Kumar Jain > >(2003), before the Delhi High Court. In this case, "a person who was blind > >due > > > >to Retinitis pigmentosa was denied permission to appear for viva-voce test > >for promotion to a Group B post by the management of Western Railway." > > > > > > > >The verdict `quashed the order of denial of permission to appear in > >viva-voce test', because `provision of Section 47(2) is mandatory'. > >Interestingly, the > > > >case of Sanjay Kumar Jain went to the apex court. There it was held that in > >the absence of any notification exempting the establishment in question, >the > > > >blind employee could not be denied promotion. > > > > > > > >Resuming John's case, a letter dated January 27, 2004, from the Department > >of Revenue, Government of India to the Commissioner of Central Excise, > >Coimbatore, > > > >was of support to the petitioner. The letter spoke of the Central Board of > >Excise and Customs representing before the Ministry of Social Justice and > >Empowerment > > > >that `posts of PO/EO and Inspector, Central Excise and Customs... have > >arduous field duties, which cannot be expected to be performed by the > >handicapped > > > >persons'. > > > > > > > >The matter is still under consideration of that Ministry, said the letter. > >Thankfully, though, the Board had decided `to permit physically handicapped > >persons > > > >to undertake the physical endurance test and promote them as per >Reservation > >quota if they qualified the test till an exemption is received from the > >Ministry > > > >of Social Justice and Empowerment.' > > > > > > > >The court, therefore, ruled: "In our considered opinion, as the petitioner > >has performed the endurance test successfully, his case can be considered > >for > > > >promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, on par > >with others, who suffered physical disabilities and were promoted >subsequent > >to > > > >the directions of the Tribunal." > > > > > > > >One hopes the Department isn't planning to appeal against this judgment. > >For, as Scott Hamilton says, "The only disability in life is a bad > >attitude." And > > > >the Bard, weary of the world's inequities, would sing: "Tired with all > >these... right perfection wrongfully disgraced, and strength by limping >sway > >disabled, > > > >and art made tongue-tied by authority..." > > > > > > > >Tailpiece > > > > > > > >"I want to hire an expert in the field of M&A taxation." > > > > > > > >"On the buyer's side, or the seller's?" > > > > > > > >http://Detaxification.blogspot.com > > > > > > > >D. Murali > > > > > > > >More Stories on : > > > >Taxation | > > > >Detaxfication | > > > >Courts/Legal Issues | > > > >Health > > > > > > > >Article > > > >E-Mail :: > > > >Comment :: > > > >Syndication :: > > > >Printer Friendly Page > > > > > > > >new frame > > > >pagead/close10x10 > > > > > > > >Stories in this Section > > > >Disadvantage SEZs > > > >Assessing reassessments > > > >The only disability in life is a bad attitude > > > >The sanctity of a trust > > > >Money-laundering zones in the making? > > > >Australia-India Trade - Gold that's put to use more gold begets > > > >Steering right the back-seat drivers > > > >War tactics for the markets > > > > > > > >new frame > > > > > > > >Ads by Google > > > >Export Credit Insurance > > > > > > > >Protect your accounts receivable! Bespoke solutions at the right cost > > > > > > > >www.ggltradecredit.com > > > > > > > >Advertise on this site > > > > > > > >The Hindu Group: > > > >Home | > > > >About Us | > > > >Copyright | > > > >Archives | > > > >Contacts | > > > >Subscription > > > > > > > >Group Sites: > > > >The Hindu | > > > >Business Line | > > > >Sportstar | > > > >Frontline | > > > >The Hindu eBooks | > > > >The Hindu Images | > > > >Home | > > > > > > > >Copyright C 2006, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination > >of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written > > > >consent of The Hindu Business Line > > > >To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with the subject unsubscribe. > > > >To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, >please visit the list home page at > >http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers > > Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8. >Get it NOW > >To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with the subject unsubscribe. > > > >To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, >please visit the list home page at > > >http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in >To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with >the subject unsubscribe. > >To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please >visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > >To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject >unsubscribe. > >To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please >visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
