Allowed

S.Parthasarathy, v. the Registrar General

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WP(MD)/7538/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought direction to repair an operative but unmanned lift and construct ramps for differently abled persons at Paramakudi Court. The Court directed the District Judge to forward ramp cost estimates and ordered the Home Ministry to act on the pending proposal for a Lift Operator post within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to sanction the post of a Lift Operator within two months; direct District Judge to forward ramp cost estimates for government follow-up.

S.Parthasarathy, Vs the Registrar General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.7538 of 2016

¶5

S.Parthasarathy ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramnad District Court,Ramnad.

¶9

3.The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶10

4.The Principal Secretary Home (Courts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 5.The Principal Secretary, Finance Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 6.The Superintending Engineer, PWD Department, Ramnad ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to repair the lift in Paramakudi Court building at the earliest and to construct the ramp to the two floors in the Court building of the Paramakudi Court campus, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman (R1 and R2) For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian (R3 to R6) Special Govt.Pleader

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶17

Mr.S.Parthasarathy, a practicing Advocate and claiming himself to be espousing the grievances of the differently abled persons in Paramakudi District, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to repair the lift, in the Combined Court Building at Paramakudi, at the earliest, and to construct ramps in the first and the second floors.

¶18

Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner has submitted that though there are many differently abled persons, litigants, including Advocates, who attend the Courts located in the ground, plus two floors, in the Combined Court Building, at Paramakudi, in Ramanathapuram District, the Lift is not operational and that there are no ramps, and thus, the differently abled persons, suffer a lot. Attention of this Court was also invited to Section 46 of the Persons with Disabilities, (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which states that the appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall, within the limits of their economic capacity and development, provide for (a) ramps in public buildings; (b) adaptation of toilets for wheel chair users'; (c) braillee symbols and auditory signals in elevators or lifts; (d)ramps in hospitals, primary health centres and other medical care and rehabilitation institutions.

¶19

At the time, when the matter came up for hearing, on instructions, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 6, submitted that, at present, the lift is operational, but there is no separate lift operator.

¶20

On the prayer sought for, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, vide proceedings in Lr.No.83M/JDO.1/C.13, dated 22.04.2016, a Junior Bailiff, Sub Court , Paramakudi, has been deputed to attend the work of lift operator, with effect from 25.04.2016, until further orders. He also submitted that, as early as on 09.07.2014, vide proceedings in Roc.No.1201/2014/G1, the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, has addressed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Chennai, for sanctioning of one post of Lift Operator to the Combined Court Building, Paramakudi, in the scale of pay of Rs.4800– 10,000 GP.1400 + Spl.pay and that the said proposal is still pending with the Government.

¶21

Attention of this Court was also invited to a letter of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram in D.No.B2/5540/2015, dated 03.09.2015, addressed to the Registrar

¶22

¶23

General, High Court, Madras, reiterating, the need for the post of a skilled Lift Operator. In the letter dated 03.09.2014, difficulties have been expressed to operate lift, in the absence of a skilled operator. On the basis of the proceedings in A1.63/2016, dated 22.04.2016 of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that till the post of Lift Operator is sanctioned by the Government, a Junior Bailiff, Office of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, has been deputed with effect from 25.04.2016. He has also added that insofar as the provision for ramp in the first and the second floors in the Combined Court Building at Paramakudi, is concerned, on 21.04.2016, a rough cost estimate for construction of ramp has been made, at a cost of Rs.34.10 Lakhs.

¶24

A revised estimate for Rs.34.10 Lakhs has been prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Building (C&M), Section No.1, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram and accordingly, a letter dated 22.04.2016 has been addressed to the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. Difficulty expressed by the writ petitioner, espousing the cause of the differently abled persons, litigants, and lawyers is that lift available in the Combined Court building, is not operational. Refuting the same, respondents have submitted that the Lift is operational, but there is no qualified lift operator.

¶25

Addressing the said issue, now, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, vide order, dated 22.04.2016, has deputed a junior bailiff, Office of the Sub Court, Paramakudi, to attend to the work of Lift Operation, with effect from 25.04.2015, until further orders. Therefore, one portion of the grievance expressed by the Writ Petitioner has been addressed, immediately.

¶26

Insofar as the provision for ramps, to the first and the second floor of the Combined Court Building at Paramakudi, is concerned, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Ramanathapuram, has submitted a rough estimate on 22.04.2016, to the learned Principal Judge, Ramanathapuram / respondent No.2. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram, to forward the same, within a week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, for follow up action and thereafter, to send the same to the Government.

¶27

As regards sanctioning of the post of Lift operator, proposals have been sent, as early as 09.07.2014 by the Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ General, High Court, Madras. Subsequently, learned Principal District Judge, Paramakudi, in letter, dated 03.09.2015 has also expressed difficulties, in operating the lift stating that there

¶28

¶29

is no skilled Lift Operator. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is not in a position to state the stage of the proposal, dated 09.07.2014. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the mandate of Persons with Disabilities, (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, we are of the view that post of lift operator is very much required in the Combined Court Building at Paramakudi, which has three floors (Ground + two floors). As the proposals are pending from 09.07.2014, we only direct the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts) Department, Chennai / respondent No.4, to take appropriate action on the proposals in coordination with the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Chennai / respondent No.5 and ventilate the grievance of the differently abled persons, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶37

2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramnad District Court,Ramnad.

¶38

3.The Principal Secretary,Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶39

4.The Principal Secretary, Home (Courts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶40

5.The Principal Secretary, Finance Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶41

6.The Superintending Engineer, PWD Department, Ramnad +1cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.No.23609

¶42

+1cc to Mr.D.Sivaraman,Advocate Sr.No.23059

¶43

+1cc to Mr.R.Ramasamy,Advocate Sr.No.23274 mpk

¶44

AA/PEK/SAR-II/01.06.2016/4p-10c

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.7538 of 2016

¶47

22.04.2016

S.Parthasarathy, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Parthasarathy, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.A. Clement Raja Vs the District Revenue Officer

M.Subramanian, Vs the District Collector and

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Grace Revathi

M/S. State Bank of India Vs the District Collector

The Secretary to Government Vs N.Dhivya

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs the Correspondent