Association plea to implement 4% PwD quota in promotion
During a state-level meeting of the association, the members unanimously resolved to submit a memorandum to chief minister Mohan Charan Majhi on the issue.
"Despite the binding directive issued by Orissa high court on Jan 30 last year directing the state govt to implement the 4% reservation within three months, the order remains unimplemented. This delay not only violates the court's directive but also disregards the department of personnel and training office memorandum issued on May 17, 2022, as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in Siddaraju vs state of Karnataka, both of which affirm the right to reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities," said Hemant Kumar Subudhi, president of the association.
"The demand is rooted in the statutory provisions of subclause (1) of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. We want implementation and compliance with the legal provision," he added.
He said their pleas have not been heard even after repeated representations. "As a result, eligible employees with disabilities across various departments continue to be denied their rightful opportunities for career progression," he added.
An official of the social security and empowerment of persons with disabilities department said the demand is under active consideration of the govt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC green-lights deportations: Trump admin wins key immigration battle; 8 detained in Djibouti cleared for transfer
US Supreme Court allows for migrant deportation Supreme Court on Thursday cleared way for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants who had been held for weeks at a US military base in Djibouti, ruling in favour of the government in a closely watched case. The unsigned order came just days after the court allowed the administration to deport certain migrants to countries other than their homeland with minimal notice. June 23 decision triggered a legal battle over whether the same policy could be applied to a specific group of eight migrants detained in Djibouti. A federal judge in Massachusetts had ruled that the June decision did not apply to these eight migrants, citing a separate court order that the administration had not appealed. The ruling temporarily blocked their removal, prompting the administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the court reversed the lower court's injunction and allowed the deportations to proceed, over the objections of two liberal justices. The migrants, who include individuals from Cuba, Vietnam and Laos, had been diverted to Djibouti while en route to South Sudan. They were being held in a converted Conex shipping container on the base. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo The administration argued that the lower court's ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court's earlier decision, and the majority agreed. In its order, the court stated that the June 23 decision applied to the case 'in full,' and rejected the argument that the Massachusetts ruling created a separate legal shield. 'Such a remedy would serve to 'coerce' the government into 'compliance' and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction,' the court wrote. Also read | 'So deranged': 'Cannibal started to eat himself' on deportation flight, says DHS chief Kristi Noem; defends Alligator Alcatraz
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court halt an Act passed by a State?
The story so far: Disposing of a writ and contempt petition, the Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court. What did SC order of July 2011 state? The Supreme Court, on July 5, 2011 issued an order stating that the State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities. The Court ordered the State to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs. The order said that the State shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos. The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists. The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Why was a contempt case filed? Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted 'to aid and assist the security forces' in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc. Section 5(2) of the Act further states that the members of the auxiliary force 'shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces…'. The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act. Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee). The legislature thus had addressed all the concerns observed by the Supreme Court. However, it was argued by the petitioners that the said enactment was not in consonance with the Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Why was contempt prayer rejected? There were reasons for rejecting the relief sought by petitioners. One, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the fact that all the directions issued by the Court had been complied to by the State of Chhattisgarh and necessary reports were submitted. Second, the Court said that every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt. The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed only on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. The Court therefore held that unless and until it is first established that the statute so enacted is in opposition to constitutional law or otherwise, it cannot be struck down. R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer and views are personal.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
From access to agency: Uplifting India's marginalised
. India's empowerment journey is at a critical inflection point. While its developmental story often showcases soaring GDP figures and rising global stature, this progress masks a more complex reality. For millions on the margins, advancement remains a distant promise. Caste, gender, disability, religion, and sexuality frequently intersect, forging layers of exclusion that persist despite legislative guarantees. It's in these invisible trenches that the real battle for empowerment is unfolding — quiet, yet transformational. At the heart of this shift is a recalibration of what empowerment means. No longer is it just about delivering benefits. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and feminist scholar Naila Kabeer argue, empowerment must expand people's capabilities and life choices. That means not merely giving marginalised communities access to goods and services, but enabling them to exercise voice, agency, and dignity. India has, in recent years, initiated an array of legal and policy instruments to address entrenched inequities. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016), Forest Rights Act (2006), and Transgender Persons Act (2019) are emblematic of this shift. Schemes like MGNREGA and the Ujjwala Yojana have brought work and clean fuel to rural doorsteps. Yet implementation reveals uneven outcomes, especially among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women with disabilities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo Bihar's Viklang Sashaktikaran Yojna and Telangana's Aasara pension scheme are examples of state-level adaptations that attempt to bridge local gaps. Civil society networks like Wada Na Todo Abhiyan monitor and pressure govts to fulfil promises, adding a layer of accountability. Meanwhile, institutions such as NITI Aayog 's SDG coordination centres are beginning to integrate community voices in planning and monitoring processes. But real change hinges on more than schemes. It requires systems that understand complexity. A tribal woman with a disability, for instance, doesn't just need a wheelchair ramp. She needs coordinated entitlements, accessible communication, and community support that acknowledges the multi-layered nature of her exclusion. Corporate India, too, is stepping in with purpose. CSR is evolving beyond cheque-writing. Projects like ITC's Mission Sunehra Kal, which has mobilised over 3.5 lakh women into self-help groups, or HUL's Project Shakti, empowering over 1.3 lakh rural women with entrepreneurship and hygiene training, are crafting new templates for inclusive growth. Vedanta's Nand Ghar and NTPC's Girl Empowerment Mission are weaving nutrition, education, and health into holistic empowerment. These initiatives are not without limitations. Intersectional targeting is still nascent. While SC/ST inclusion has improved, a closer look reveals gaps in addressing compounded vulnerabilities—say, for transgender persons with disabilities or religious minorities in remote areas. CSR interventions must therefore move from outcome counting to impact mapping, using tools like storytelling, community audits, and life histories to understand what change looks like from the ground. International partnerships add momentum. UNDP-supported projects like the Gender Seal for Development are institutionalising gender equity across health systems and skilling programmes like SMILE. A major structural reform is the govt's push for third-party evaluations of centrally-sponsored schemes, undertaken by the Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office (DMEO). These assessments are unearthing the gaps and successes that often escape attention. The convergence of law, policy, civil society, and corporate commitment offers an unparalleled opportunity. But the real test lies in embedding intersectionality — in seeing the individual not just through one identity marker but through all that shapes their lived reality. Welfare delivery must give way to systems of recognition, redistribution, and representation. Only then will India's growth story be truly inclusive, not just in charts and numbers, but in lives changed, voices heard, and futures reimagined.
