PANJIM: The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) quashed and set aside the order by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities that rejected the representation filed by a 58-year-old Bhatlem, Panjim resident to consider his case with regard to mental disability.
This order was given in connection with a petition that was filed by Sudesh Kumar Waingade.
Waingade was in service with the State government’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) department.
While in service, he suffered some mental ailment. He was treated at The Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour (IPHB), Bambolim and a certificate was also issued stating that he is suffering from schizophrenia. However, the Commissioner refused to entertain his powers under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act) 2016 to adjudicate the application filed by the petitioner and rejected the representation filed by Waingade.
“It is the fit case to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand it to the learned Commissioner to decide such application afresh and by considering the provisions of the said Act. Similarly, the Commissioner, if necessary, should afford an opportunity to the petitioner either to appear in person or through his representative or to file written synopsis/submissions in support of his case,” said Justice Bharat Desphande.
It is to be noted that the Act deals with persons with disability which include physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment.
The court has asked that the decision be taken on the application within a period of one month from Wednesday and said the petitioner is at liberty to file his submissions, if any, within a period of one week.
“The application filed under Section 80(b) of the Act of 2016 is also required to be considered on the ground that such legislation is a beneficial piece of legislation to the persons with disability. The purpose of the said Act is in tune with the United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with disabilities. The object of the said Act is to protect the rights of persons with disabilities at their employment places or otherwise,” said the Judge.
“Such persons should not suffer discrimination at any level only because they are suffering with such disabilities. Keeping in view the above object of the Act, it is necessary for the Commissioner to decide whether the application filed by the petitioner requires any benchmark to be considered or whether it comes under Section 2(s) r/w Section 80(b) of the Act of 2016,” the Judge added.
“The impugned order clearly goes to show that all the above aspects have not been considered at all and the learned Commissioner refused to entertain his powers under the Act to adjudicate the application filed by the petitioner,” the Judge stated further.