Re: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees
Agreed, this expression sounds very strange. There is an expression of positive discrimination in the PWD Act which gives more realistic definition to equal opportunity. Thanks Dipendra -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of akhilesh Sent: 11 March 2013 12:34 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees Hello, Judgment reads: objectionable content: It appears that the Act of 1995 came into being with an aim to provide equal opportunities and for protection of rights and full participation of disabled persons so that they may not lag behind the able-bodied persons only because of the ill fate that they were born with or have become handicapped. The idea is to make them equal to able-bodied persons and not to provide opportunities to them for being better than able-bodied persons. == I repeat the objectionable content from the judgment. The idea is to make them equal to able-bodied persons and not to provide opportunities to them for being better than able-bodied persons! === The judg is seems to have some sort of bias against disable people. Such comments are not acceptable at any cost!!! On 3/11/13, Dipendra Manocha wrote: > I My understanding, the reservation in promotion doesn't exist for > persons with disabilities. Thus this judgement is in line with that understanding. > In case of SC and ST, such reservation in promotion was to be issued > through legislative amendment, I am not aware if this was actually > done or not. > > This matter is not of judgement but of getting change in our law and > policy on this issue. Court judgement seem to be in line with our > current law and policy. > > Thanks > Dipendra > > > -Original Message- > From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On > Behalf Of srinivas.karnati > Sent: 10 March 2013 14:59 > To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in > Subject: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation > in promotion to disabled employees > > Dear accessindian friends: good afternoon to all of you. > > Kindly go through the negative judgement on the subject forwarded by a > well wisher of the disabled. I request you to highlight the issue > where ever possible and to see that justice is done to disabled. > > With regards, > > karnati srinivas > > Email: srinivas.carn...@gmail.com > > > > vs - on 5 September, 2011 > > Principal Bench > > OA No.3254/2010 > > New Delhi this the 05th day of September, 2011. > > Hon ble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) > > Hon ble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) > > 1. Rajeev C. Mathur, working as Income Tax Officer, Ward 20 (2)(4) > Mumbai, R/o Wing B Flat No.602, Shiv Om Apartments, Adjacent to > Chandivali Film Studio, Powai, Mumbai-400072. > > 2. Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Working as Income Tax Officer, CIB Mumbai, > R/o Flat No.304/A, Bhairavi, Doordarshan Employees, Cooperative > Housing Society Ltd., Gokuldham, Goregon (E), Mumbai. > > -Applicants > > (By Advocates Shri Vikrant Yadav) > > -Versus- > > 1. Union of India through theSecretary, Ministry of Finance Department > of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Blcok, New Delhi. > > 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Shastri > Bhavan, North Block, New Delhi-110001. > > 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, > Mumbai-400020. > > 4. Dr. K. Shyam Prasad, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) > Administration Mumbai, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, > 3rd Floor Ayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. > > 5. Mr. K.J. Verma, Director (Reservations), DOPT, North Block, New Delhi. > > 6. Director (A.D. VI), C.B.D.T, North Block, New Delhi. > > -Respondents > > (By Advocate Shri V.P. Uppal) > > O R D E R > > Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): > > Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: > > i) This Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set > aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2010. > > ii) This Hon ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents > to apply the policy of reservation of 3% vacancies for physically > handicapped for promotion in Group B and Group A services during > the period 1998 to 2005. > > iii) This Hon ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the > respondents to reserve 3% vacancies filled up by promotion in Group B > and Group A posts, during the period 1998 to 2005 and thereafter > grant the applicants the benefit of the said Reservation by > anti-datin
Re: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees
Hello, Judgment reads: objectionable content: It appears that the Act of 1995 came into being with an aim to provide equal opportunities and for protection of rights and full participation of disabled persons so that they may not lag behind the able-bodied persons only because of the ill fate that they were born with or have become handicapped. The idea is to make them equal to able-bodied persons and not to provide opportunities to them for being better than able-bodied persons. == I repeat the objectionable content from the judgment. The idea is to make them equal to able-bodied persons and not to provide opportunities to them for being better than able-bodied persons! === The judg is seems to have some sort of bias against disable people. Such comments are not acceptable at any cost!!! On 3/11/13, Dipendra Manocha wrote: > I My understanding, the reservation in promotion doesn't exist for persons > with disabilities. Thus this judgement is in line with that understanding. > In case of SC and ST, such reservation in promotion was to be issued > through > legislative amendment, I am not aware if this was actually done or not. > > This matter is not of judgement but of getting change in our law and policy > on this issue. Court judgement seem to be in line with our current law and > policy. > > Thanks > Dipendra > > > -Original Message- > From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf > Of srinivas.karnati > Sent: 10 March 2013 14:59 > To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in > Subject: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in > promotion to disabled employees > > Dear accessindian friends: good afternoon to all of you. > > Kindly go through the negative judgement on the subject forwarded by a well > wisher of the disabled. I request you to highlight the issue where ever > possible and to see that justice is done to disabled. > > With regards, > > karnati srinivas > > Email: srinivas.carn...@gmail.com > > > > vs - on 5 September, 2011 > > Principal Bench > > OA No.3254/2010 > > New Delhi this the 05th day of September, 2011. > > Hon ble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) > > Hon ble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) > > 1. Rajeev C. Mathur, working as Income Tax Officer, Ward 20 (2)(4) Mumbai, > R/o Wing B Flat No.602, Shiv Om Apartments, Adjacent to Chandivali Film > Studio, Powai, Mumbai-400072. > > 2. Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Working as Income Tax Officer, CIB Mumbai, R/o > Flat > No.304/A, Bhairavi, Doordarshan Employees, Cooperative Housing Society > Ltd., > Gokuldham, Goregon (E), Mumbai. > > -Applicants > > (By Advocates Shri Vikrant Yadav) > > -Versus- > > 1. Union of India through theSecretary, Ministry of Finance Department of > Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Blcok, New Delhi. > > 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Shastri Bhavan, > North Block, New Delhi-110001. > > 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, > Mumbai-400020. > > 4. Dr. K. Shyam Prasad, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) Administration > Mumbai, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 3rd Floor Ayakar > Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. > > 5. Mr. K.J. Verma, Director (Reservations), DOPT, North Block, New Delhi. > > 6. Director (A.D. VI), C.B.D.T, North Block, New Delhi. > > -Respondents > > (By Advocate Shri V.P. Uppal) > > O R D E R > > Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): > > Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: > > i) This Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside > the impugned orders dated 16.08.2010. > > ii) This Hon ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to > apply the policy of reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped > for promotion in Group B and Group A services during the period 1998 to > 2005. > > iii) This Hon ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents > to reserve 3% vacancies filled up by promotion in Group B and Group A > posts, during the period 1998 to 2005 and thereafter grant the applicants > the benefit of the said Reservation by anti-dating their promotions to > Group > B Service and granting them promotion to Group A service, as per their > turn, with all consequential benefits. > > iv) Cost of this Original Application be provided for. > > v) Any other relief/rules may be granted to the applicant which deemed to > be > proper and reasonable in the eye in law. > > 2. As can be seen from the relief clause, grievance of the applicants is > that reservation of 3% vacancies for physically
Re: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees
I My understanding, the reservation in promotion doesn't exist for persons with disabilities. Thus this judgement is in line with that understanding. In case of SC and ST, such reservation in promotion was to be issued through legislative amendment, I am not aware if this was actually done or not. This matter is not of judgement but of getting change in our law and policy on this issue. Court judgement seem to be in line with our current law and policy. Thanks Dipendra -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of srinivas.karnati Sent: 10 March 2013 14:59 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: [AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees Dear accessindian friends: good afternoon to all of you. Kindly go through the negative judgement on the subject forwarded by a well wisher of the disabled. I request you to highlight the issue where ever possible and to see that justice is done to disabled. With regards, karnati srinivas Email: srinivas.carn...@gmail.com vs - on 5 September, 2011 Principal Bench OA No.3254/2010 New Delhi this the 05th day of September, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. Rajeev C. Mathur, working as Income Tax Officer, Ward 20 (2)(4) Mumbai, R/o Wing B Flat No.602, Shiv Om Apartments, Adjacent to Chandivali Film Studio, Powai, Mumbai-400072. 2. Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Working as Income Tax Officer, CIB Mumbai, R/o Flat No.304/A, Bhairavi, Doordarshan Employees, Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Gokuldham, Goregon (E), Mumbai. -Applicants (By Advocates Shri Vikrant Yadav) -Versus- 1. Union of India through theSecretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Blcok, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Shastri Bhavan, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 4. Dr. K. Shyam Prasad, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) Administration Mumbai, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 3rd Floor Ayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. 5. Mr. K.J. Verma, Director (Reservations), DOPT, North Block, New Delhi. 6. Director (A.D. VI), C.B.D.T, North Block, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri V.P. Uppal) O R D E R Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: i) This Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2010. ii) This Honble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to apply the policy of reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped for promotion in Group B and Group A services during the period 1998 to 2005. iii) This Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to reserve 3% vacancies filled up by promotion in Group B and Group A posts, during the period 1998 to 2005 and thereafter grant the applicants the benefit of the said Reservation by anti-dating their promotions to Group B Service and granting them promotion to Group A service, as per their turn, with all consequential benefits. iv) Cost of this Original Application be provided for. v) Any other relief/rules may be granted to the applicant which deemed to be proper and reasonable in the eye in law. 2. As can be seen from the relief clause, grievance of the applicants is that reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped (PH) persons in Group B and A services should also be made applicable in the case of promotion. The relief is being sought on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Dropadi Seth v. Union of India & Others [OA No.1952/2003, decided on 17.12.2003] and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.11818 and 13627-2004 in the case of Union of India through G.M. Northern Railway and Chairman Railway Board v. Jagmohan, decided on 07.12.2007 (Annexures A-13 and A-14 respectively). 3. During the course of arguments learned counsel of applicants has also placed reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of National Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service Commission and others, (1993) 2 SCC 411 and Amita v. Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 721. We fail to understand how applicants can draw assistance from these judgments. In the case of National Federation of Blind (supra) the Apex Court has directed the Union of India and Union Public Service Commission to permit the visually handicapped (blind and partially blind) eligible candidates to compete for Indian Administrative Service and the Allied Services in Braille-script or with the help of scribe. Govt. of India also commended to decide the question of providing preference/reservation to the visuall
[AI] Negative judgement by a CAT on the issue of reservation in promotion to disabled employees
Dear accessindian friends: good afternoon to all of you. Kindly go through the negative judgement on the subject forwarded by a well wisher of the disabled. I request you to highlight the issue where ever possible and to see that justice is done to disabled. With regards, karnati srinivas Email: srinivas.carn...@gmail.com vs - on 5 September, 2011 Principal Bench OA No.3254/2010 New Delhi this the 05th day of September, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. Rajeev C. Mathur, working as Income Tax Officer, Ward 20 (2)(4) Mumbai, R/o Wing B Flat No.602, Shiv Om Apartments, Adjacent to Chandivali Film Studio, Powai, Mumbai-400072. 2. Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Working as Income Tax Officer, CIB Mumbai, R/o Flat No.304/A, Bhairavi, Doordarshan Employees, Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Gokuldham, Goregon (E), Mumbai. -Applicants (By Advocates Shri Vikrant Yadav) -Versus- 1. Union of India through theSecretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Blcok, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Shastri Bhavan, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 4. Dr. K. Shyam Prasad, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) Administration Mumbai, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 3rd Floor Ayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. 5. Mr. K.J. Verma, Director (Reservations), DOPT, North Block, New Delhi. 6. Director (A.D. VI), C.B.D.T, North Block, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri V.P. Uppal) O R D E R Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: i) This Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2010. ii) This Honble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to apply the policy of reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped for promotion in Group B and Group A services during the period 1998 to 2005. iii) This Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to reserve 3% vacancies filled up by promotion in Group B and Group A posts, during the period 1998 to 2005 and thereafter grant the applicants the benefit of the said Reservation by anti-dating their promotions to Group B Service and granting them promotion to Group A service, as per their turn, with all consequential benefits. iv) Cost of this Original Application be provided for. v) Any other relief/rules may be granted to the applicant which deemed to be proper and reasonable in the eye in law. 2. As can be seen from the relief clause, grievance of the applicants is that reservation of 3% vacancies for physically handicapped (PH) persons in Group B and A services should also be made applicable in the case of promotion. The relief is being sought on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Dropadi Seth v. Union of India & Others [OA No.1952/2003, decided on 17.12.2003] and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.11818 and 13627-2004 in the case of Union of India through G.M. Northern Railway and Chairman Railway Board v. Jagmohan, decided on 07.12.2007 (Annexures A-13 and A-14 respectively). 3. During the course of arguments learned counsel of applicants has also placed reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of National Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service Commission and others, (1993) 2 SCC 411 and Amita v. Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 721. We fail to understand how applicants can draw assistance from these judgments. In the case of National Federation of Blind (supra) the Apex Court has directed the Union of India and Union Public Service Commission to permit the visually handicapped (blind and partially blind) eligible candidates to compete for Indian Administrative Service and the Allied Services in Braille-script or with the help of scribe. Govt. of India also commended to decide the question of providing preference/reservation to the visually handicapped persons in Groups A and B posts in Govt. and Public Sector undertakings expeditiously. Similarly the issue involved in the case of Amita (supra) was to make adequate arrangement of a scribe for the petitioner during the entrance test for the post of Probationary Officer in Indian Overseas Bank. It was in the factual background that the observation was made by the Apex Court. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the reservation in respect of physically disabled persons in direct recruitment is available to all categories, including Group B and A posts, whereas no such reservation has been made in promotion qua Group A and B posts. Thus, the judgments cited by the applicants do not deal with the point t
