news details |
|
|
| CS files affidavit, DB directs implementation of Act | | PIL seeking implementation of Disability Act | |
Jammu, NOV 14 (JNF) : In a Public Interest Litigation filed by National Federation of Blind seeking implementation of Disability Act 1998, earlier Division Bench had directed the Chief Secretary to file his personal affidavit with regard to the decision taken on the report of the Committee already submitted to him.
On this direction the Chief Secretary J&K State Madav Lal filed his affidavit when the matter came for consideration.
Division Bench Comprising Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Mohd Yaqoob Mir sought information from the Senior Additional Advocate General Gagan Basotra regarding the report of the expert committee which is stated to have been prepared in pursuance of Govt order dated January 27, 2012 under the chairmanship of Commissioner/Secretary to Govt Social Welfare Dept. A Copy of the report dated September 3, 2012 has been placed before the Division Bench. A perusal of the report shows that the Committee has identified various posts in all the depts.
The additional secretary Bashir Ahmed Wani who was present in the Court has stated that different posts in various depts have been identified and there is no dept which have been exempted from the purview of section 21 of Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1988.
Upon this Division Bench further observed that however, mere identification of the posts would not be sufficient in the absence of total number of posts.
Therefore, Commissioner/Secretary Social Welfare Dept is directed to file additional affidavit to show how many posts which have been identified are available. The needful shall now be done within two weeks. He also explains why such posts have not been sent to the concerned recruiting agencies like PSC, SSRB or any other. Division Bench observed that Chief Secretary shall ensure that the orders are complied with.
The necessity of supervision by the Chief Secretary has been felt in view of the fact that the directions by the Court were issued earlier in pursuance to the Act enforced in the year 1998. Division Bench took serious note and said that despite various orders passed in these proceedings the needful has not yet been done and one or other escape route is adopted by pleading that the officers are not aware about the implementation of the Act. Division Bench said that 1998 Act is very simple in its language and intent. These are lame excuses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
