# Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. Government of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1214
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-31
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18302 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-gupta-v-government-of-u-p-ors-49036
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 1995- Petitioner-differently
abled-50 % locomotor disorder-applied for
advertisement-appointment on post of Library
Peon (one Post)-essential qualification-class V
pass and ability to ride cycle-Petitioner claims
violation of his rights and humiliation-before
reservation to be claimed-identification of post
necessary-absence of the same-reservation
cannot be claimed-in absence of specification of
'bicycle' in advertisement-he should have been
allowed to ride a tricycle-and should be compete
as a General category candidate-Petitioner is
entitled to compensation at Rs. 5,00,000/- by
the Respondent St. Government-W.P. partly
allowed. (E-9)

Held, the amount of compensation has been
awarded to let the petitioner know, the St. may
take time to hear & understand its citizen and
his plight but, it is neither deaf nor heartless as
may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag
his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek
justice. The citizen works at the heart of the
giant being the St. is. Unless the heart beats
freely, the being cannot thrive. (para 31)

List of Cases cited:

K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) Vs U.O.I., (2017)
10 SCC 1

## Text

1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counter affidavit in the instant case has
been invited and filed, this Court finds that
it is one such case that falls in the
exceptional category where the Court can
exercise its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, in such
view of the fact, the objection raised by the
learned counsel for the respondents is not
sustainable.

29. For the reasons given above, the
writ petition is allowed, and notice dated
02.01.2021 issued by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Firozabad and paragraph 16 of the
letter dated 18.01.2021 are quashed and a
writ of mandamus is issued to the
respondents to issue appointment letter to the
petitioner as Assistant Teacher in any Junior
Basic School to which she has opted as per
her preference within one month from the
date of production of the certified copy of this
order and the respondents shall ensure the
joining of the petitioner and shall pay regular
monthly salary on the said post regularly
every month with all consequential benefits
to which she is entitled in law. There shall be
no order as to cost.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1214
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 18302 of 2021

Pradeep Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Government of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta (In Person). Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 1995- Petitioner-differently
abled-50 % locomotor disorder-applied for
advertisement-appointment on post of Library
Peon (one Post)-essential qualification-class V
pass and ability to ride cycle-Petitioner claims
violation of his rights and humiliation-before
reservation to be claimed-identification of post
necessary-absence of the same-reservation
cannot be claimed-in absence of specification of
'bicycle' in advertisement-he should have been
allowed to ride a tricycle-and should be compete
as a General category candidate-Petitioner is
entitled to compensation at Rs. 5,00,000/- by
the Respondent St. Government-W.P. partly
allowed. (E-9)

Held, the amount of compensation has been
awarded to let the petitioner know, the St. may
take time to hear & understand its citizen and
his plight but, it is neither deaf nor heartless as
may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag
his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek
justice. The citizen works at the heart of the
giant being the St. is. Unless the heart beats
freely, the being cannot thrive. (para 31)

List of Cases cited:

K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) Vs U.O.I., (2017)
10 SCC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

1. Heard the petitioner - Sri Pradeep
Kumar Gupta, in person and learned
Standing Counsel for the State. Also, on the
request of the Court, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi, Advocate has assisted the Court
to ascertain the correct facts.

2. The petitioner is a differently abled
person having 50% locomotor disorder. On
24.06.2006,
an
advertisement
was
published
inviting
applications
for
appointment, amongst other, on the post of
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.
1215
Library Peon (one post) at Government
Degree College, Deoband, Saharanpur. The
essential qualifications prescribed were
Class V pass and ability to ride cycle. The
petitioner applied for appointment on that
post.
He
was
called
for
interview.
However, in the interview, the petitioner
was not evaluated. It is his grievance, he
was summarily required to leave as he
could not ride a bicycle, which test was
insisted upon him though the petitioner
could ride a tricycle with equal efficiency.
Thus, the petitioner claims violation of his
rights and alleges humiliation caused to
him, mainly by the then Principal of the
Government Degree College, Deoband,
Saharanpur.

3. The petitioner agitated the matter.
Subsequently,
a
higher
educational
qualification (for the post of Library Peon)
of High School was insisted. Since the
petitioner did not hold that qualification, he
was excluded. The petitioner alleges hostile
discrimination having been practised by the
State respondents and complete violation of
his special rights under the Rights of
Persons
with
Disabilities
Act,
1995
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act').
The petitioner assailed the selection made,
by filing Writ Petition No. 17917 of 2007.

4. Also, upon the petitioner escalating
the issue and lodging complaints, the Regional
Employment Exchange (Divyangjan), Meerut
Division instituted an enquiry into the
allegations levelled by the petitioner. It
submitted
report
dated
23.11.2007.
Thereunder, it was observed as under:

"प्रदेश के समि सवभागों पर सवकलांगिन
असधसनयम 1995, सवकलांगिन हेतु आरक्षण व पदो के
सचन्हांकन का शासनादेश प्रभावी होने के बाविूद भी उक्त
सनयुस्क्त प्रसक्रया में प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा
सवकलांग अभ्यिी श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता के असधकारों का
हनन/ असतक्रमण करके िानबूझकर उसे सनयुस्क्त के
लाभ से वंसचत सकया गया है। उपरोक्त से स्वतः ही स्पष्ट है
सक प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी के िारा अपनायी गयी चयन
प्रसक्रया पूणष रूप से पक्षपातपूणष, त्रुसर्टपूणष एवं दोर्पूणष है।"

5. Thereafter the court/office of State
Commissioner
(Divyangjan),
exercising
powers vested under Section 82 of the Old
Act
directed
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur and the Additional Commissioner
(Divyangjan), Saharanpur, to institute a
magisterial enquiry into the complaint made
by the petitioner. Admittedly, the magisterial
enquiry was conducted and its report
submitted on 09.09.2019. In that, the
Magistrate found the fact allegation made by
the petitioner to be correct and made the
following observation:

"प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में मा० आयुक्त, सहारनपुर
मण्डल, सहारनपुर के सनदेशों के क्रम में क्षेत्रीय सेवायोिन
असधकारी (सदव्यांग) मेरठ/सहारनपुर मण्डल िारा अपने
कायाषलय के पत्रांक- सेवा-1/अ/थिापना/0302/िांच/2008
सदनांक- 12-02-2008 को प्रेसर्त की गयी, सिसमें मुख्यतः
उस्ल्लस्खत
सकया
गया
सक
रािकीय
स्नातकोत्तर
महासवद्यालय, देवबि मे प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा
नवम्बर 2006 में पररचारक पद के चयन के समय अपने ही
िारा समाचार पत्रों में सवज्ञासपत समूह 'घ' कमषचारी सेवा
सनयमावली 1985 के आधार पर चयन ससमसत गठन न
करना, साक्षात्कार की सतसि के समय सवभाग में सवकलांग
आरसक्षत पदों के ररक्त होने के बाविूद सदव्यांग अभ्यिी श्री
प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता की महासवद्यालय में सनयुस्क्त संबंधी
सवकलांग िन आयुक्त, उ०प्र० व सनदेशकः (उच्च सशक्षा),
सशक्षा सनदेशालय उ०प्र० इलाहाबाद के पत्र सदनांक
13/11/2006 को संज्ञान में न लेना तिा आयोसित
साक्षात्कार से पूवष ही इन पत्रों पर अपने सवभागाध्यक्ष /
मुख्यालय से परामशष में न लेना, शासन से पररचारक का
पद सवकलांग - िन हेतु सचन्हांसकत होने के बाविूद
सवकलांग अभ्यिी श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता को प्रभावी
नवीनतम शासनादेशों के अनुरूप साईसकल चलाने की
परीक्षा में सशसिलता न देना तिा चयन ससमसत से पूवष सनयम
सवरूि बनायी गयी ससमसत में हाईस्कूल का अंकपत्र
प्रिुत न करने का सहारा लेकर प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता को
अनहष घोसर्त करना समूह घ' कमषचारी सेवा सनयमावली के
प्रासवधानों के सवरूि साक्षात्कार के 50 अंको का दोर्पूणष
तरीके से सवभािन करना पररचारक के पद पर लखनऊ से
एक मात्र सपछड़ी िासत के अभ्यिी को सामान्य वगष में
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
चयन करना, इसी आवेदक को बाद में सवभागीय असभलेखों
में उसे सपछड़ी िासत का दशाषना सनयम सवरुि व
शासनादेशों के सवपरीत है। क्षेत्रीय सेवा योिन असधकारी
(सवकलांग), मेरठ मण्डल, मेरठ िारा अपनी िांच में यह
भी उल्लेख है सक भती के समय प्रभावी शासनादेशों को
संज्ञान में न रखना, सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा भती प्रसक्रया में
व्यापक िर पर की गई असनयसमतताओं, पक्षपातपूणष
कायषवाही ही सशकायत की सत्यता को पररलसक्षत करती
है। सशक्षा सनदेशक (उच्च सशक्षा) उ०प्र० इलाहाबाद ने
अपने पत्र में प्रभावी शासनादेशों के अनुपालन का दासयत्व
संबंसधत सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी का ही होना स्पष्ट सकया है।
वतषमान में भी महासवद्यालय में चतुिष श्रेणी के ररक्त पद
दफ्तरी- 01, स्वीपर कम चौकीदार-01, है सिनमें दफ्तरी
का पद सवकलांगिन हेतु सचन्हांसकत सकये िाने का उल्लेख
गया है। प्रदेश के समि सवभागों पर सवकलांगिन
असधसनयम-1995, सवकलांगिन हेतु आरक्षण व पदो के
सचन्हांकन का शासनादेश प्रभावी होने के बाविूद भी उक्त
सनयुस्क्त प्रसक्रया में प्राचायष/ सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा
सदव्यांग अभ्यिी श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता के असधकारों का
हनन / असतक्रमण करके िानबूझकर उसे सनयुस्क्त के
लाभ से वंसचत सकये िाने तिा प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी
के िारा अपनायी गयी चयन प्रसक्रया पूणष रूप से
पक्षपातपूणष, त्रुसतपूणष एवं दोर्पूणष होने का उल्लेख सकया
गया है।

अतः उपरोक्त तथ्ों तिा प्रािी िारा उपलब्ध
कराये गये साक्ष्ों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है सक उक्त चयन
प्रसक्रया में प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा शासनादेशो एवं
सनयमों का पालन नहीं सकया गया है।

अतः उपरोक्त तथ्ों तिा प्रािी िारा उपलब्ध
कराये गये साक्ष्ों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है सक उक्त चयन
प्रसक्रया में प्राचायष/ सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी िारा शासनादेशों
एवं सनयमों का पालन नहीं सकया गया है।"

6. Also, upon receipt of direction
issued
by
the
court/office
of
State
Commissioner
(Divyangjan)
dated
23.05.2019,
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur, acting as the Additional
Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur,
made his own enquiry and passed an order
dated 30.11.2019, wherein it was observed
as under:

"उक्त प्रकरण में सम्पासदत हुई िााँचाख्याओं
एवं साक्ष्ों के परीक्षणोपरान्त सदव्यांगिन (समान अवसर
असधकार संरक्षण एवं पूणष भागीदारी) असधकार असधसनयम
के प्रावधानों तिा सदव्यांगिन हेतु उ०प्र० शासन के िारा
समय-समय पर िारी शासनादेशो को दृसष्टगत रखते हुए
रािकीय स्नात्कोत्तर महासवद्यालय, देवबि (सहारनपुर) के
वतषमान प्राचायष/सनयुस्क्त प्रासधकारी को आदेसशत सकया
िाता है सक सदव्यांग श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता को सदनााँक
30.11.2006 में िानबूझकर सनयुस्क्त के असधकार से वंसचत
करने तिा सनयुस्क्त सम्बन्धी असधकारों का हनन करने के
कारण श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता को उसी सतसि से सनयुस्क्त एवं
सनयुस्क्त के अन्य सभी लाभ सदया िाना सुसनसित करते हुए
एक सप्ताह के भीतर सनयुस्क्त पत्र पंिीकृत िाक के
माध्यम से श्री प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता को िारी करते हुए कृत
कायषवाही से इस न्यायालय/कायाषलय को भी अवगत
कराये। सदव्यांगिन के सहत में कायष करना, संवेदना तिा
सहानुभूसत पूवषक कायष करना शासन के सवभागों की
प्रािसमकता है, तासक उपेसक्षत सदव्यांगिनो के सहतो का
संरक्षण करते हुए उन्हें समाि की मुख्य धारा के साि िोड़ा
िा सके, परन्तु तत्समय सनयुस्क्त प्राचायष ने इसके सवपरीत
िानबूझकर सदव्यांग को उसके सनयुस्क्त एवं िीवन यापन
करने के असधकार से वंसचत सकया है, उक्त प्रकरण में
सम्पासदत हुई िााँचाख्याओं एवं साक्ष्ों के आधार पर प्राचायष
पूणष रूप से दोर्ी पाये गये है। अतः तत्समय सनयुक्त प्राचायष
के सवरुि भी कायषवाही सकया िाना असत आवश्यक है।"

7. At that stage and in view of the
order dated 30.11.2019 passed by District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur,
the
petitioner
withdrew his earlier writ petition No.
17917 of 2007, in belief of appointment
thus assured to him.

8. However, the above order was
assailed by the then Principal of the
Government Degree College, Deoband,
Saharanpur, in Writ ? A No. 1975 of 2020
(Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. &
3 Ors.). It transpires, in the course of those
proceedings,
office
of
the
District
Magistrate/Additional
Commissioner
(Divyangjan), Saharanpur, vide further
order
dated
17.02.2020
withdrew
in
entirety its earlier order dated 30.11.2019.
In that regard, the following recital is
contained in the order dated 17.02.2020 :

"उपरोक्त तथ्ों की पुसष्ट उत्तर प्रदेश शासन
के उच्च सशक्षा अनुभाग-5 से सनगषत कायाषलय-ज्ञाप सदनांक
04-03-2011
से
हुई।
सिसके
अन्तगषत
संस्थित
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.
1217
अनुशाससनक कायषवाही में श्री अशोक कुमार शमाष को दोर्
मुक्त पाया गया है। सकन्तु सिला सदव्यांगिन सशस्क्तकरण
असधकारी सहारनपुर िारा प्रिुत र्टीप आख्या सदनांक 1110-2019 व 22-11-2019 में उक्त तथ्, िो सक सनणाषयक
तथ् िे, को सछपाते हुए वािसवकता का उिघार्टन नही
सकया
गया
सिसके
कारण
आदेश
संख्या-6797/
सि०सद०ि०स०अ०, सदनांक 30-11-2019 अस्ित्व में
आया। अब उक्त तथ्ों के संज्ञान में आने के उपरान्त
आदेश संख्या-6797/सि० सद०ि० स०अ०, सदनांक 30-112019 को तत्काल प्रभाव से वापस सलया िाता है।"

9. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to
have agitated the matter further and has
filed the present petition. Though the relief,
as framed, is not happily worded, upon
assistance from the Sri Prabhakar Awasthi
and the learned Standing Counsel, and
upon the matter being discussed with the
petitioner (in person), it transpires, he has
sought
remedial
action
against
the
respondents both for himself as also with
respect to enforcement of the Act.

10. It has been thus submitted, the
petitioner was entitled to be granted
reservation as a person with disability by
virtue of the Old Act. In fact, reservation
was provided under the original notification
dated
24.06.2006.
Accordingly,
the
petitioner was called for interview by
granting
age
relaxation
allowable
to
reserved category candidates, though on
that date, he was more than 40 years of age,
his date of birth being 01.07.1966.

11. According to the petitioner, it is
not a simple case of hostile discrimination
but is one that has caused deep humiliation
as during the course of interview, the
petitioner was forced to part with his
tricycle which he uses to commute and was
called upon to ride a bicycle which
obviously he could not and which fact was
self apparent from the physical appearance
of the petitioner. This humiliation and
discrimination
is
attributed
(by
the
petitioner), to the then Principal of the
Government Degree College, Deoband,
Saharanpur.

12. Second, it has been submitted,
only to deprive the petitioner opportunity
of employment, the selection process was
stalled and higher educational qualification
(than that possessed by the petitioner), was
pressed. It was done only to exclude the
petitioner from the zone of consideration.
Also, such course was adopted by the then
Principal of the Government Degree
College, Deoband, Saharanpur, only to
avoid compliance of the directions issued
by other State authorities to give effect to
the reservation granted under the old Act.

13. Third, it has been submitted, the
State Commissioner (Divyangjan), the
Magistrate,
Saharanpur,
the
District
Magistrate, Saharanpur and the Magisterial
enquiry had found the petitioner to have
been discriminated and humiliated. At the
same
time,
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur, had passed the order requiring
the petitioner to be granted employment
against the post of Library Peon at the
Government Degree College, Deoband,
Saharanpur. That order was wrongly
withdrawn by the then District Magistrate,
Saharanpur, for reasons not known to the
petitioner.

14. Last, the petitioner has prayed for
a high level enquiry to be instituted to hold
the guilty responsible so that justice may be
done to the petitioner.

15. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel would submit, this is not
the first writ petition filed by the petitioner.
His earlier writ petition being Writ ? A No.
17917 of 2007 filed to seek quashing of the
select list pursuant to the advertisement
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred to above, was dismissed as
withdrawn on 07.01.2020. Therefore, no
challenge may arise to the selection already
made.

16. Insofar as the enforcement of the
order
of
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur, dated 30.11.2019 is concerned,
it has been submitted, the same was
withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2020,
which fact has also been taken note of in
the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Writ ?
A No. 1975 of 2020 (Ashok Kumar Sharma
Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.).

17. As for the orders passed by the
State Commissioner and the Magistrate, no
direction has been issued as may allow any
relief of appointment (on any post), to be
granted to the petitioner, at this stage.

18. Last, in view of the decision of
this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. & 3 Ors, no further enquiry is
warranted, at this stage.

19. Having heard the petitioner (in
person), learned Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, in the first
place, it cannot be denied, there is no room to
consider the challenge to selection already
made. That challenge was made in the earlier
writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ
- A No. 17917 of 2007. That petition came to
be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
07.01.2020. In absence of liberty granted to
the petitioner to file a second writ petition
that relief may not be granted now especially
since the petitioner is past the age of fresh
employment (being about 56 years of age)
and he has not impleaded the duly selected
candidate.

20. Besides the fact, the petitioner is
about 56 years of age, in any case, before
any reservation may have been claimed for
a person with disability, identification of
post was necessary to be made under the
Old Act. No such identification or
reservation of post for person with
locomotor disability is shown to have been
provided
before
issuance
of
the
advertisement.
In
absence
of
post
identification and reservation made, the
petitioner could not have claimed a right to
be appointed on the post of Library Peon
upon claiming reservation under the Old
Act.

21. However, what is most disturbing
is the fact that instead the petitioner being
apprised of this fact and the consequent
position in law, it does appear, the
petitioner was unfairly asked to ride a
bicycle which he obviously could not. In
any case, in absence of specification of
'bicycle'
in
the
advertisement
dated
24.06.2006, the petitioner should have been
allowed to ride a 'tricycle' which also
qualifies as a cycle. In other words, if
otherwise eligible the petitioner should
have been allowed to compete as a General
Category
candidate.
His
carrying
a
disability did not render him ineligible.

22. Though the order of the District
Magistrate
dated
30.09.2019
stood
withdrawn by the subsequent order dated
17.02.2020, it is surprising, no action has
been taken pursuant to the magisterial
enquiry report dated 09.09.2019, pursuant
to the order of the State Commission dated
23.05.2019.

23. Here, again, the piquant situation
exists, inasmuch as, the withdrawal of the
order dated 30.11.2019 has not been
challenged by the petitioner. In fact, on the
strength of the withdrawal of that order,
Writ A No. 1975 of 2020 (Ashok Kumar
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.
1219
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) came to
be disposed of.

24. Therefore, no positive relief is
found deliverable to the petitioner in such
circumstances, at this belated stage.

25. In the first place, there is found no
post identified or reserved for persons with
locomotor disablity, before issuance of the
advertisement inviting application for the
post of Library Peon at the Government
Inter
College,
Deoband,
Saharanpur.
Second, the petitioner was more than 40
years of age on the date of first application
on 2006. In absence of reservation for
person with locomotor disability, the
petitioner could not have claimed benefit of
relaxation of age treating himself to be
candidate
belonging
to
the
reserved
category. That occasion would have arisen
only if the enabling reservation had been
first provided for. Though necessary,
clearly, that was not done. Third, at present,
no relief can be granted in the nature of
employment for reason of passage of time
as also for reason of the enabling order
passed by the District Magistrate dated
30.11.2019 was withdrawn in toto. Besides
no challenge thereto, that action had been
practically endorsed by the Court in its
earlier order dated 20.02.2020 passed in
Writ ? A No. 1975 of 2020 (Ashok Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.). Also,
for that reason, no further enquiry is to be
made at this belated stage.

26. However, it yet survives for
consideration, whether the petitioner may
be found entitled to any other relief for
reason of being dealt with unfairly to the
point of his dignity being violated and
being humiliated at the instance of the State
authorities, for no fault and for the State
and its functionaries having failed to
protect him, which act was against the
mandate of the Constitution.

27. No occasion may have existed to
make this consideration if the respondent
State authorities had apprised the petitioner
of the correct facts and made him
understand the same without violating his
dignity as a human being and without
committing any positive act of humiliation
in making him feel inadequate, owing to
his different ability.

28. Having done that the State and its
functionaries have not only failed a special
citizen but also violated his fundamental
right to life and liberty - for what worth is
human existence if it is denuded of dignity
and
respect
deserving
its
cherished
existence. Deprived of dignity, liberty is a
sea-shell washed to the shore, dead and of
ornate value for others but worthless to the
being that used to live within it.

29. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy9J) Vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1,
detailed discussion and analysis of the
fundamental right to life and liberty has
been made. In that, considering the entire
gamut of law the following pertinent
observations have been made in the
majority decisions:

"108. Over the last four decades,
our
constitutional
jurisprudence
has
recognised the inseparable relationship
between protection of life and liberty with
dignity. Dignity as a constitutional value
finds expression in the Preamble. The
constitutional vision seeks the realisation of
justice (social, economic and political);
liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith
and worship); equality (as a guarantee
against arbitrary treatment of individuals)
and fraternity (which assures a life of
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dignity
to
every
individual).
These
constitutional precepts exist in unity to
facilitate a humane and compassionate
society. The individual is the focal point of
the Constitution because it is in the
realisation of individual rights that the
collective well-being of the community is
determined. Human dignity is an integral
part of the Constitution. Reflections of
dignity are found in the guarantee against
arbitrariness (Article 14), the lamps of
freedom (Article 19) and in the right to life
and personal liberty (Article 21).

110. A Bench of two Judges in
Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi
[Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi,
(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212]
("Francis Coralie") while construing the
entitlement
of a detenue
under
the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention
of
Smuggling
Activities
(Cofeposa) Act, 1974 to have an interview
with a lawyer and the members of his
family held that : (SCC pp. 618-19, paras
6-8)

"6. The fundamental right to life
which is the most precious human right and
which forms the ark of all other rights must
therefore be interpreted in a broad and
expansive spirit so as to invest it with
significance and vitality which may endure
for years to come and enhance the dignity
of the individual and the worth of the
human person.

7. the right to life enshrined in
Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere
animal existence. It means something much
more than just physical survival.

8. We think that the right to life
includes the right to live with human
dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely, the bare necessaries of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter
and facilities for reading, writing and
expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely
moving about and mixing and commingling
with fellow human beings. Every act
which offends against or impairs human
dignity would constitute deprivation pro
tanto of this right to live and it would have
to be in accordance with reasonable, fair
and just procedure established by law
which stands the test of other fundamental
rights."

111. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India [Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984
SCC (L&S) 389] , a Bench of three Judges
of this Court while dealing with individuals
who were living in bondage observed that :
(SCC p. 183, para 10)

"10...This right to live with
human dignity enshrined in Article 21
derives its life breath from the directive
principles of State policy and particularly
clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and
Articles 41 and 42 and at the least,
therefore, it must include protection of the
health and strength of the workers, men
and women, and of the tender age of
children against abuse, opportunities and
facilities for children to develop in a
healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity, educational facilities,
just and humane conditions of work and
maternity relief. These are the minimum
requirements which must exist in order to
enable a person to live with human dignity,
and no State ? neither the Central
Government nor any State Government ?
has the right to take any action which will
deprive a person of the enjoyment of these
basic essentials."

113.
Human
dignity
was
construed in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
[M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8
SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] by a
Constitution Bench of this Court to be
intrinsic to and inseparable from human
existence. Dignity, the Court held, is not
9 All. Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.
1221
something which is conferred and which
can be taken away, because it
is
inalienable : (SCC pp. 243 & 247-48,
paras 26 & 42)
"26... The rights, liberties and freedoms of
the individual are not only to be protected
against the State, they should be facilitated
by it. It is the duty of the State not only to
protect the human dignity but to facilitate it
by taking positive steps in that direction.
No exact definition of human dignity exists.
It refers to the intrinsic value of every
human being, which is to be respected. It
cannot be taken away. It cannot give (sic be
given). It simply is. Every human being has
dignity by virtue of his existence.

***

42. India is constituted into a
sovereign, democratic republic to secure to
all its citizens, fraternity assuring the
dignity of the individual and the unity of the
nation. The sovereign, democratic republic
exists to promote fraternity and the dignity
of the individual citizen and to secure to the
citizens certain rights. This is because the
objectives of the State can be realised only
in and through the individuals. Therefore,
rights conferred on citizens and noncitizens are not merely individual or
personal rights. They have a large social
and
political
content,
because
the
objectives of the Constitution cannot be
otherwise realised."

(emphasis supplied)

114. In Maharashtra University
of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak
Mandal [Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal,
(2010) 3 SCC 786 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
894] , this Court held that the dignity of the
individual is a core constitutional concept.
In Selvi [Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010)
7 SCC 263 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] , this
Court recognised that : (SCC p. 376, para
244)

"244... we must recognise that a
forcible intrusion into a person's mental
processes is also an affront to human
dignity and liberty, often with grave and
long-lasting consequences."

115. In Mehmood Nayyar Azam
v. State of Chhattisgarh [Mehmood Nayyar
Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 8
SCC 1 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 34 : (2012) 3
SCC (Cri) 733 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 449] ,
this Court noted that when dignity is lost,
life goes into oblivion. The same emphasis
on dignity finds expression in the decision
in
NALSA
[National
Legal
Services
Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC
438] .

119. To live is to live with dignity.
The draftsmen of the Constitution defined
their vision of the society in which
constitutional values would be attained by
emphasising,
among
other
freedoms,
liberty and dignity. So fundamental is
dignity that it permeates the core of the
rights guaranteed to the individual by Part
III. Dignity is the core which unites the
fundamental
rights
because
the
fundamental rights seek to achieve for each
individual the dignity of existence. Privacy
with its attendant values assures dignity to
the individual and it is only when life can
be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of
true
substance.
Privacy
ensures
the
fulfilment of dignity and is a core value
which the protection of life and liberty is
intended to achieve."

30. Also, the respondents are
generally at fault in not providing for
identification and reservation of adequate
post for person with locomotor disability at
Government Degree College at Deoband,
Saharanpur.

31. Thus, in the entirety of the facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case,
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cumulatively, the State has failed it's
special citizen. He is therefore found
entitled
to
lump-sum
compensation
assessed at Rs. 5,00,000/-, which may be
paid out to the petitioner by the respondent
State
Government
directly
into
the
following
Savings
Bank
Account
(disclosed by the petitioner), held in the
name of Shivam Gupta bearing A/C No.
919010037208046
(IFSC
Code
UTIB0002426), within a period of three
months from today. In absence of payment
made within that time, that amount would
attract interest @ 8% from today till the
date of actual payment.

32. The amount of compensation has
been awarded to let the petitioner know, the
State may take time to hear & understand
its citizen and his plight but, it is neither
deaf nor heartless as may ever remain
indifferent, forcing him to drag his feet,
almost literally, to this Court to seek
justice. The citizen works at the heart of the
giant being the State is. Unless the heart
beats freely, the being cannot thrive.

33. Respondent no.1 is entrusted to
ensure due compliance of this order. It is
made plain, in this case compensation
awarded is on the State as a whole and not
on its executive wing alone.

34. With the aforesaid observation,
the present petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 18535 of 2021
Dilip Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Gupta, Sri Ramesh Rai, Sri R.K.
Ojha (Senir Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Arti Raje, Sri Arun Kumar, Sri
Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Pramod Kumar
Singh, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Sri Ram Pal
Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa
Niyamawali,
1962-Petitioner's
service
dispensed
-major
penalty-without
following
regular disciplinary proceedings-earlier enquiry
dropped-recommendation to start fresh enquiry
by framing charges-dismissal order passed
without fresh enquiry -impugned order quashedPetitioner reinSt.d.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

A.N.D'Silva Vs U.O.I., AIR 1962 SC 130
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
J.Nagar, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for
the respondent nos 5,6 and 7 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Invoking extra ordinary equitable
jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner
who is an employee of Jalkal Department,
Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj has assailed the
order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the General
Manager of the Jalkal Department, Nagar
Nigam, Prayagraj, namely, respondent no.
5 on the ground that the order has been
passed dispensing with the services of the