Cannot Ask State To Treat All Visually Impaired Persons On Par With Other Disabled Persons: Madras High Court

Therefore, we are of the view that we cannot direct the Respondents to treat all the Differently Abled Persons under Visually Impaired category on par with Differently Abled Persons who are incapable of any employment.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation on a plea by Nethrodaya, an organisation working for the differently abled community. The petitioner organization had sought for transfer of the Pension Scheme for the Visually Impaired from the Social Welfare Department to the Differently Abled Department. The second prayer was to enhance the pension of the Visually Impaired persons from Rs. 1000 to Rs.1500 on par with that given to other Differently Abled Persons.

The NGO had contended that by giving different pensions, the State discriminates between those visually impaired, and other Differently Abled Persons, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It was argued that visually impaired persons are equally incapacitated. 

The petitioner submitted that some visually impaired persons were incapable of earning a livelihood and they ought to be treated on par with other Differently Abled Persons. Further, it was argued, the cost of living was the same for all persons, thus, discrimination in the quantum of allowance paid was illogical and unfounded.

The government told the court that it was actively trying to alleviate the suffering of all Disabled Persons. In fact, the court was told, the State Government itself had increased the benefit under the Central Government's "Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme" by adding Rs. 700 along with Rs. 300 contributed by the Central Government. The State had also increased the number of beneficiaries under the Scheme, the government counsel submitted.

The State also informed that the maintenance allowance was enhanced only for those persons who were incapable of getting public employment or other employment. These included persons with intellectual disabilities, severely affected persons, persons affected with muscular dystrophy, and leprosy-affected persons. These persons could not be equated with visually impaired Differently Abled Persons who were eligible for public employment and other types of employment, Additional Advocate General S. Silambannan argued. The State also highlighted various welfare schemes put out in in place by it for the benefit of visually impaired persons.

After considering the contentions on either side, the court agreed with the stand of the respondent that Visually impaired persons could not be equated with other Differently abled persons.

It is also not in dispute that the Differently Abled Persons, who are visually impaired, are entitled to public employment and private employment as well. Therefore, the Differently Abled Visually Impaired Persons cannot be equated with Differently Abled Persons who are ineligible to get any employment on account of the sickness and infirmity suffered by them. The basis adopted by the Respondents to treat them differently cannot be faulted.

However, since petitioner argued that certain persons who are visually impaired are also ineligible for employment on account of other sicknesses, infirmity, and old age, the division bench directed the State to consider their request to treat them on par with other Differently Abled Persons, who are getting the monthly maintenance allowance.

With respect to the prayer seeking transfer of the scheme from one department to other, the court held that it could not direct the State to administer a Scheme through a particular Department.

The NGO had contended that the Social Welfare Department was not acting fairly and that the Differently Abled Persons who were visually impaired had to go through several hardships. The State in response informed the court that Revenue Divisional Officers would be appointed in all Districts to look into the grievances of the differently abled persons.

The court thus directed the respondents to ensure strict adherence to the undertaking and ensure that no hardship is caused to the Differently Abled Persons for getting the benefits under the Monthly Pension Scheme and no unnecessary formalities are insisted upon.