- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Duty Of Institute To Provide Better...
Duty Of Institute To Provide Better Working Conditions For Specially Abled Persons Not Just A Moral Imperative, But Legal Obligation: Karnataka HC
Mustafa Plumber
18 April 2024 11:10 AM IST
The Karnataka High Court quashed a direction issued by the Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore Centre, to withhold payment of HRA paid to a disabled professor of the institute on the ground that he was staying in the guest house provided by the institute.A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Prof. Dr Kaushik Majumdar said, “The duty of...
The Karnataka High Court quashed a direction issued by the Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore Centre, to withhold payment of HRA paid to a disabled professor of the institute on the ground that he was staying in the guest house provided by the institute.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Prof. Dr Kaushik Majumdar said, “The duty of an Institute to provide better working conditions to specially disabled persons is not just a moral imperative but also a legal obligation under various disability rights and legislations and international conventions.”
Further, the court directed the Institute to expedite the process of building new quarters for the petitioner ensuring that it meets all accessibility and accommodation requirements specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The court also reminded the Institute of its obligation under the Act, 2016 and its urge to take proactive measures to ensure the inclusion and well-being of all employees with disabilities.
The petitioner, who is diagnosed with polio and has 85% orthopaedic disability, applied for a faculty position at ISI in 2006 and was subsequently selected as an Assistant Professor in 2008. Despite expressing his preferences for the Kolkata campus, he was directed to join the Bangalore Centre. Prior to his joining, the petitioner communicated his physical condition and accommodation requirements to the Head of the Bangalore Centre through email, which was acknowledged.
However, upon his arrival, the petitioner found himself lodged in a single-room accommodation in the Campus Guest House, a situation he expected to be temporary. This temporary arrangement has persisted since 2009, with no efforts made by respondent-Institute to provide suitable accommodation befitting the petitioner's stature and physical challenges, it was stated.
It was noted that the guest house accommodation provided to the petitioner lacks basic amenities essential for someone with physical disabilities—such as the petitioner being forced to cook his own food due to the absence of regular dining facilities in the guest house.
Furthermore, it was noted that the guest house room does not have a kitchen, compelling the petitioner to prepare his meals in the toilet area, where a heating point is available. The court said “Such conditions not only compromise the petitioner's dignity but also pose serious health and safety risks.”
Court noted that the petitioner is one of the leading experts in the field of Human Electroencephalogram(EEG) and Electrocorticogram (ECoG) signal processing in India, and he is physically handicapped and relies on an electric chair for mobility.
Since his appointment in 2009, the petitioner has faced challenges regarding suitable accommodation which is denied by respondent No.2-Institute for reasons best known to it, the Court stated.
The bench remarked, “This Court is really perturbed and disturbed by the conduct of the Institute in the manner in which the petitioner is treated.”
Following this it held, “Upon careful examination of the present facts and in consideration of the Act, 2016, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to reasonable accommodation by the employer. The provision of one room guest house to an Professor of a Premier Institute coupled with respondent No.2-Institute's prolonged delay in providing proper quarters, constitutes a failure to fulfil its obligation under the law. The cessation of house rent allowance vide impugned direction further compounds the petitioner's difficulties disregarding petitioner's needs and rights as a person with a disability.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate B C Seetha Rama Rao for Petitioner.
Advocate Madhukar Deshpande FOR R-1 AND R-2.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Case Title: Prof Dr Kaushik Majumdar AND Indian Statistical Institute & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 264 OF 2024