Can’t discriminate with contractual employees, says HC

THE COURT WAS HEARING A PLEA FILED BY A 75% DISABLED MAN APPOINTED ON CONTRACT IN A HARYANA GOVT UNDERTAKING

BENEFITS UNDER DISABILITIES LAW

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the state government cannot discriminate between a contractual and the regular employees for grant of the benevolent under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995.

The high court bench of justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a 75% disabled man, Jaswinder Singh, appointed as data entry operator in July 2008 on contract basis in HARTRON – a Haryana government undertaking. The petitioner while on duty suffered brain hemorrhage in May 2009 and was then operated upon in the PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted also for around a month.

Since he was covered under the ESIC Scheme, his medical bills worth ₹ 41,000 and ₹ 21,000 were initially disbursed but were stopped later on.

He remained under treatment till April 2011 and was then declared fit to join duty by the PGIMER, his counsel, Ranjivan

Singh said. As per Singh, he was not permitted by HARTRON to join his duties which forced him to approach the commissioner for persons with disabilities, social justice and empowerments, Haryana under PWD Act, 1995 seeking joining with all consequential benefits.

The commissioner in June 2015 directed HARTON to consider and decide his claim. Hence, HARTON permitted him to join the duty but issued a fresh service contract agreement with less salary than what was being drawn by him earlier.

He had challenged this in high court and sought continuity of service and restoration of the benefit under the ESIC Scheme by way of reimbursement of his medical expenditure in view of provisions of the PWD Act.

The HARTON had argued that him being a contractual employee was not entitled to the benevolant provisions under the law. The court termed the case in question an example of employer taking advantage of his dominance vis-à-vis the employee and ordered that the medical expenses of the petitioner would be reimbursed as per the terms of contract which were subsisting on the date on which he suffered the brain stroke and and ordered re-fixation of his salary on parity with his counterparts.