Disposed

Smt.sushma Jaiswal v. Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Telangana HC10 Sept 2012PIL/137/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed by Sushma Jaiswal, the Supreme Court examined allegations that the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board violated fundamental rights and the Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act by employing workers for manual sewer cleaning. The Court allowed the Board's submission that mechanization was underway and directed it to formulate a scheme for introducing modern cleaning

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board to formulate a Scheme to introduce modern techniques for cleaning of sewerage through machines, even in narrow lanes.

Smt.sushma Jaiswal Vs Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.137 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:10.9.2012

¶5

Between: Sushma Jaiswal and others … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Municipal Administration & Urban Development Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.137 OF 2012

¶11

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶12

This public interest litigation is filed to declare the action of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, ‘the Board’) in employing the sewerage employees in gross violation of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 39(e), 42 and 47 of the Constitution of India and also in utter violation of Section 3 of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioners also sought consequential directions to the Board inter alia to ensure safety of sewerage workers during employment and prevention of manhole deaths, to provide periodical medical treatment to the workers, to provide modern protective equipments to all the sewerage workers and to desist engagement of sewerage workers from cleaning sewers manually.

¶13

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Our attention was also drawn to the Act, by learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also considered the definition of ‘manual

¶15

scavenger’ given under Section 2(i) of the Act, which reads as under:

¶16

2(i). “Manual Scavenger” means a person engaged in or employed for manually carrying human excreta and the expression ‘manual scavenging’ shall be construed accordingly.”

¶17

After considering the same, it appears to us that the manual

¶18

scavengers cannot be equated with that of the workers of the Board.

¶19

Respondent No.7 – Board has filed a counter affidavit in the matter and in paragraph – 6 of the said counter it is stated that the Board has already taken steps in the matter by introducing Air Tech Sewer Cleaning Machines. It is also accepted that manual clearing is being taken up only in very narrow lanes, which are inaccessible to Air Tech Machines.

¶20

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Board is providing safety equipments like gas masks, gumboots, torchlights, rope ladders, dewatering pumpsets etc., with first aid box. The Board is also providing medical facilities to the workers to eradicate the occupational diseases. It is further stated that steps are being taken for mechanization and desist the use of manual cleaning by GPE workers. The Board is also taking steps to modernize the procedure of cleaning sewerage in narrow lanes.

¶21

After considering the averments in the said counter affidavit and the submissions made before us, particularly since the Board is taking necessary steps in the matter for mechanization of sewerage cleaning system so as to discontinue manual cleaning of sewerage in a phased manner, we accept such submission on behalf of the Board, and direct the Board to formulate a Scheme to introduce modern techniques for cleaning of sewerage through machines, even in narrow lanes.

¶22

With the above direction, the public interest litigation is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 10.9.2012 bnr

Smt.sushma Jaiswal v. Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.sushma Jaiswal v. Municipal Administration and Urban Development

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

K v Satyanarayana, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.V. Satyanarayana Vs The Governmetn of Andhra PRadesh

C.J.Karira, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Ram Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary

B. Srinivasulu Vs The Principal Secretary

Uppana Vijaya Bhaskara Rao, Vs The Executive Engineer

Banjara Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal

Vulli Muralikrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Naidu Cultural Club Vs The Dy. I.G. of Police

Munchipilli Bangaramma Vs The District Collector

Forum for Good Governance, rep.by its Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

M.Sarvotham Reddy Vs The District Collector

A.Sarat Kumar, Vs Sri Satyanarayana