High Court · 2025

Petition ur der Section 151 cpc praying that in the circums;tances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court ma,7 be pleased to direct the Respordents to treat the entire period from 22112/2016 to 11t0gt2o1g as on duty as dirt ctec by the Court of Chief Commissroner. Counsel for the F,etitioner : SRI M.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Fespondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF TNDIA The Court made the following: ORDER n o ':;- THE HoN,BLE sBr wsTIcE NAMAvARApu RA*IEaHWAR RAo T ITION No.25 762 o f20.22 ORD This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... ..to issue a Wit, order or direction particularlg one in the nafitre of WRIT OF 'MANDAMUS bg declaring ttLe oction of Respondent Nos'2 and 3 in not treating ttte peiod from 22/ 12/2016 to 11/09/2o18 as on dutg and not paging salory for the said peiod in accordance 'tttith tle orders of the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons ruith Disabilities Act Diugangan 2016 and further the action of the Respondents in seeking to recouer Rs 1 78 647/ from the Petitioner and tle action of Respondents in not paging arre(trs of MACP and Reuision of Pag and tlle increments due to tlw Petitioner as illegat arbitrary ond uiolatiue of Articles 14 16 and 21 of tle Constitution of Ind'ia ond- contrary to the Rights of Persons ruith Di.sabilities Act 2o76 more especiallg Sec 2o 4 and. further direct the Respondents to treat tlte entire peiod from 22/ 12/2O16 to 11/09/2018 as on dutg and pay salary accordingtg and also release arrears under MACP bg setting aside i .''!-gl]- i I a 2 ,',1,"";',? : ::, ^y i"^.o u" * d a r e d j ;r atias 12 p"*r1 .".'.',1 14/ l2tzozo ,,,i:h

2. The briel (, ,,,.tttt" of the case are as follows :- appoin terl as a crinicar .4r;5j51q I 99 I axd su b s petiuoner 'tn,r. Instirurion ,,rrr., two brain .r.*.,,1^1 i:i- petitioner was initi' in the 3'a t""oot'ott"' """tt in tJre o '* promoted *ot*tg as a *"^t"t ;' ;.o i.*""rL ^-". ;rH::' *"" stroke. 'year :",:",.:;:,;i:;",";:::".#,a1secunde.,o.," 'ed a joining report *"n the Medical litness certifir--ate issued by tre ,,o'"* etent authority' iowever' with')ut allowing the pet ti ner to join 6''r, directed the petirio to obtain t accordingly, .*,r, *,ttt submission a-lso, the petitro-r", u'"t referred to the Merii Hospitar ror its "o,,,"1 certificate on i5 09.2, of the not allowed to join "":* ", ;;;t.tl;-";' ' which has issur 317 stating that ,the opinion artd d opinion a Medical """olnt responderrts candidate ---.k:'!'E !.;t-r, - - J suffering from right Hemiplegia with Aphasia' hence he is unfit for his duties'' (ii) Based on the said report' the respondents have declaredthatthepetitionerisunfitforjoiningdutyand' accordingly, he was asked to seek Invalidation Pension in terms of Rule 38(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules' 1972' (iii) Challenging the said action of the respondent authorities, earlier the petitioner filed W'P'No' f8510 of 2017 seeking reinstatement into service and subsequentlY' said writ Petition on the Petitioner withdrawn the the Court of Chief 2l.og.2ol7 and aPProached Commissioner , New Delhi, which after hearing both sides' passed the Order vide Case No.8545 I lO23 I 2Ol7' dated 20.O7.2018, observing as follows :- -After heaing both the Complainant and the Respondent, the Court felt that it u'tas not at all necessaru for the Respondent No'7 to set up a Committee to examine the case oJ tte Comptainant for tuking action on the recommen'dotion of the said co**itt...TheCourtalsofeltthatt|ereulasalsono need for the Respond'ent No'2 to refer the case of tte Complainant fot claifrcation regarding creation of a 4 su.o(\7l11rlerary paft, to tLe Mini"stry of Finance, Dept. of ))xpendifitre as it is cleartg mentioned unCer Sect on lto(4) of the Rights of persons with Disabiliries Act:, 2 O 1 6 that no Gouemment establishmertt sl.mll disp,:n.se with or reduce in rank, an employee u.,ho acqu'res a disability duing hk or her seruice; l\-ouided that, if an emplogee, after acquir ng disal'iLitu k not suitable for the post he u.tas h.oldirry, shall be s hifted to some other post utith the same paA scale and seruice benefits. Prouided further that it is not possible to adjus t the emplogee against anA post, he mag be ke,ot on .1 stlDemumerary post until a suitable posl is auotlc ble or he attains the age of superannuatton, uthi<:h zuer is earlier,'. The Court obserued. that tLLere is gross uiolati n. cf Rights of persons uith Disabilities Act, 2O 1t; bg Respond_ent No. 1 . The Court d_irecte,i Respo,tder,.t No. I and. Respond_ent No.2 to facilitat,z the Ocmplainant so that he can join dutg within 3r.) dags tf i:;suance of this Ord.er and pag all thtz outstar,.diruT dues to tlte Complainant tiil date anc.l submit a compliance report to the Court uithin 4!:; dags or'is:tLance of this Ord.er. " 5 (ir) Pursuant to the above order dated 2O'O7 '2018 of the Court of Chief Commissioner, New Delhi' the petitioner was reinstated into service on 1 1'09'2018' (v) After reinstatement, since the petitioner's pay has not been fixed in the revised pay scales and has not been paid the arrears of the Modifred Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) along with increments' he made a representation seeking the said reliefs' While so' respondent authorities issued an order dated 15.10.2020 declaring the period of absence of the .petitioner from 22.12-2016 to 11'09'2018 as extraordinary leave and kept the petitioner's salary in a hxed deposit without releasing the same' (vi) Based on the said order dated 15'1O'2O20' the DirectorGeneralofAudithadissuedproceedingsdated 14.12.2020 alleging that though the petitioner was not eligible for extraordinar5r leave for the period from 22.12.2016 to 11.09.2018 and increments during the said period for a sum of Rs'1,78,647 l- was excessively paid to 6 him, tht. same was directed to be reiovered fiom the petitione- ard. accordingly, the same was being r:covered from his rar (vii) A.llgrieved thereby, the petitione r approach:d the Chief Commissioner. The. Chief Commissirnr::- vide order dated O2.Og.2O2t disp,lssd 61 Case No. 12683/1023/2O2I observing as follows : "Thi:; )ot.rt conclud-es that tLle Complainant u)(rs not able tt, joht duties because of any fault on his pctn, insteatl Co,nplainant was d.epriued. bg the respond.ent from rt'alLzing hb right to emplogment. Resportdent depiue d rc complainant from attend.ing duties b1; failing1 to ,zbide bg the mand.ate of Section 2oft) ol RpWD ,t67, ;291 6. This Ccurt ,"ecommend.s that respond.ent shall fo ow the matLda'z of Section 2oft) in letter as well as tn spiit. Respondent shall releqse the salary of the complctit tant for peiod. starting from 22.12.2016 ttu 11.09..2019. For this peiod, complainant sltctll be consider zd on dutlJ, instead of on ,Extraord.inary leaue'. " (viii) Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.09 .2021, the respond,)nts have filed a review and the same was 7 rejected by the Chief Commissioner vide order dated

06.O4.2022. Though the review was rejected

06.O4.2022, the benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to have not been released. However, the recovery is being continued. Therefore, the petitioner has frled the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-lnstitute.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the order of the Chief Commissioner has become final, so far, the respondents have not treated the period lrorn22.l2.2ot6 to 11.09.2018 as on duty and not paid the salary to the petitioner for the said period.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 2O$l of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the employer has to provide an alternative employment considering the disability or create I 8 a superj lurr erar:i post ard if such a post is not irvailable, pay sala y 1o the petitioner accordingly. 6 Thr:relirre, learned counsel submits that apllropriate orders t e g>assed in the writ petition direc ,ing the responclents to treat the period from 22.12.,..>.016 to 11.09.20 !8 :IS 'on duty' and pay the salary lor r,he said period

7. On the other hand, learned Standing r.lounsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been uncler treatment since l3.OT.2OlS, ald during the course o1' treatment, the petitioner was on corrLmuted leave, ard thereafter he was on extraordinary leave from 22.12.2O1(, tc, IO.Og.2O1g. The petitioner was not aljou,ed to join dut ,, as; medical fitness is essentiai for joininl3 duty and, accor< lingly, he was referred to the Medical Board of the Osman; a (icvernment Hospital for a second opinirtn, as the first c()rtificate produced by him was issued by a private doctrr, rvhich is not in the appropriate format, The 9 Medical Board of Osmania Hospital examined the petitioner and declarea ni- as unfit to discharge his duties. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not allowed to join duty on 2I'12'2016 is untenable'

8. Lrarned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further contends that it is not true to say that theCommissionerhasnotconsideredanyoftherelevant rules before passing the order dated O2'09 '202t and in compliance with the said order' the petitioner was reinstated into service' The averment that the petitioner was illegally prevented from joining duty on 22'12'2OL6 and declared the period frorn 22'12'2016 to 1 1'09'2018 as extraordinary leave is incorrect' as the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Osmania General Board' g. With regard to release of salaqr of ttre petitioner' learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was paid salary for the period of medical leave, however, no sa1ary was paid since l0

22.12.2A15 as no leave is available to the credit of the petitioner. 'lherefore, the period from 22.12.2016 to 1I.O9.2O1], i.e., 628 days, is considered as ar.: extra ordinar5,- L:ave on medica_I grounds by follou,ing Rr.rles 12 and 32 o1'OCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. I 0. Rule 1 2 of the Central Civil Services Leave Rules states as fc llo.,r.s :- (1) No Gcntentment (seruant) shall be granted. leaue, of an.17 kintl for a continuous period exceeding Jiue, aears. (2) L'n'es:; the President, in uieut of the excepttonai circurn.s'.ance of the case, othenuise d.etermines, a Gouentr tent seruant utlto remains absent from dutg for a ctntinuous period exceed.ing fiue gears other than on foreign seruice, uith or u_tithout leaue, shall be deemed to haue resigned from the Gouenunent sentice: Prou led tltat a reasonable opportunitg to explain the rects tns for such absence sha be giuen to that Gouernr, ent seruant before proui,sions of sub-rute (2) are inuol:ed Prouid.e 7 that this rule shall not applg to a crrse tuhere k,aue is apptied on medical certifrcate, m connectic n unth a disab itg.

11. Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services Leave Rules states as follows :- (1) Ertraordinary leaue mag be granted to a Gouentment seruont (other than a military officer) in special cirat msl ance s. (a) Wlen no other leaue is admissible: (b) When other leoue is admissibte, but ttle Gouentment seruant applies in writing for tle grant of extraordinary leaue- (2) Unless tle President in uieut of the exceptional ciratmstances of the case otherutise determines, no Gouernment sen)an| utho is not in permanent employ or quasi-pennanent emplog, shall be granted extraordinary leaue on anA one occasion in excess of the follou-ting limits: - (a) three months; (b) Six montlrc, u-there the Gouentment seruott hc's completed one gear's co'Tntinuous seruice on the date of expiry of leaue of the kind due and admissible under these tules, including there month.s' extraordinary leaue under Clause (a) and hi's request for such leaue is supported bg a medical certificate as required bg these ruIes;

12. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed 12

13. Pei. contra, learned petitione : s;rrbmits that before also, the t:rspondent authorities submissi )ns on 2g.06.2OIg, stating as follor.r,s :_ counsel appearing for the the Chief Comnissioner submitted their written 21 T'lte representatiue of Respond.ent No.t?, utle his utitten submisston dated 2g_06_2O f 8 sul mitted thqt Hon,ble Court was appisecl that aptr ropriate directions haue been issued for :;ettllLg up )f a Committee to find_ a suitable post J.or tlte C<)n tplcunant in pursuance of Section 2oft) :f Riql tts c,f persons with Disabilities Act, 20 j 6 uid.e lette r d ate d. 1 3 _O 4 - 2 0 1 B. The C ommittee co ns tt tu t e rl bg tte hrctitute for thi_s purpose had submitted it.; refro"t. ht the report the Committee has mentronecl the lomplainant is unable to understand basi:,; comr tun.ication and i.s not able to independentll; spe'a'c ar,.d understand read.ing and u.triting skills requi -ed -for fitnctional task for hts anrent post oJ.. Read zr ,znd Assistant Director or anA other technt.cai and non-technical posts in the instttute and tlu:, recommend.ed_ that Dr. prakash maA opt for [n tahcr. pension in terms of Rule 3ge) of CC,S penst(tn Rfules, 1972. He further submitted that itt uietu of Section 2oft) of Rigttts of , L,ith Disabitities Act, 2O t 6. it has beer L keepir g Persor s

1. :t l3 considered not to accept the reammendatior* of the Committee and. ttre co.se stands rekrted to the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Expenditure for creation of a supentumerary.post till such time a suitable post is found for him or till h;s superonnuation uthictLeuer is earlier. Tte oduie of the Ministry of Fiance is atoaited and furtler action uitl be taken accordingtg. As regords, relea'se of srrlaires are concerrled' it has been informed bg Director, AYJNHH, Mumbai that the salary for th'e peiod leaue due to Dr. S.G.R' Prokash has been released due to him for tLrc peiod he uas on medical leoue. He has been declared 'UNFIT' by the Gouernment ser-uont on leaue on medical ground uill be pertnitted to refi1rn to dutg onlg on production of medical certificate of fitness (Rule 19 o& 24 (3) of Centrol Ciuil Seruices (I'eaue) Rules' 1972). No salary since 22'12'2017 has been released as no leaue is auailable in his credit'"

14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appea-ring for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5486 of 2011, dated 14'09'2022' tn which the petitioner therein was appointed as a casual conductor in the Corporation in the yea-r 1984' arrd regularized his services the year 1987' While he was on 't4 duty, he met with arr accident arrd was hospitalized. After first aicl ,reatment he was shifted to Corporation Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, from where on medical ar.lvise, he was serrt to llizarn,s Institute of Medical Sciences irnd aJter surgery oI th,: spina] cord, his two discs were removed. The corporati( )n retired the petitioner from servrce on medical grounds vide order dated. 2I.OZ.2OOl. Though the petitionerr made several representations [or p,-oviding alternativr: enrployment, the Corporation paid no attention, arrd the szid writ petition was allowed

15. On thr: other hand, learned Standing ,::ounsel appearins lor t.he respondents relied upon a Division Bench judgmenl. of this Court in W.p.No.22695 of 2OO9 dated 28.O2.2Ot2,., v'herein the said writ petition was allowed observingzsfollows:- "This Court, Lta.uing consid.ered. the riuat. subrzi sslorzs mad_e bg the parties, is of the uieut that the ret;pondent utas d_eclared. medicalty unfit and. lrc: proceedi.ng s, case of the medicallg decqtegorised. o 6. 0 6. 2 o 02.,. i Thereafter, 1L)AS .< 15 respondent was placed before tle Screenrng committee and on repnmmendation of th-e Scteening Committee onlg, the petitioners haue continued the respondent as DeputV Chief Controller and uten o person is medicollg decotegorised, his case uill not come within tte puruieut of tte Act, 1995 and the Tribunal was not justified in allouing the O A in fauour of th.e respondent. Tlerefore, the orders passed bg tlrc Tibunal are liable to be set aside and accordinglg, theY ore set aside. "

16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said case pertains to the promotion of the petitioner therein and, therefore, the said case is not applicable to the present case

17. While arguing the matter, Iearned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits during the leave period'

18. Per corltra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Civil Services (l'eave) Rules, 1972, were amended as follows :- i 16 Th<: Dep6171yn"nt of personnel & Training (DOpT) hrLs issur rd a fresh set of Insturction to all Mirti:;ties / Departkents granting reloxation irt the Cett'al Ciuil Seruices (Leaue) Rules, 1972 for Disa,tlecl emplogees. In an Office Memorand_um d.aied Febn,,an1 25, 20 jS, the DopT hos reiterated. that rhe dkal led emplogees uLiII be entitted to pag, promott.on ana tther seruice benefits euen if tlteg cannot be taken back to the post they u_lere hold.ing or ctre adjusled or kept waiting until a suitable uocon,:A aises. The nedical leaue on account of disabilitg taill not lte subjet t tc ceiling und.er Rule 12 and ang leat e debite 7 for the period. afier a Gouemment seruant ts declar td incapacitated. sha be remitted. back in,o his/ lte r lec,.ue account. The lenue applied on med.ical connec tiotL taith disabilitg cannot cLlso be refusecl ctr reuok:e,l u;ithout rekrence to a Medical Authonty, tahose adtice sha be binding. Leaue uill also be grante(t. eL'en if the Gouernment seruant,s fomitlr memLe - stt,bmits an application/ med.ical certificate ir,. case tht etnplogee is unable to do so on account of th<, disabili y. The : en,ices of an emplogee can neither be termina.ed nor reduced in rank in case the empLogee has actruied a disability during his seruice. Any di.sable,c' en'ploAee toho ii not fit to retum to dutA certtficate I'L t shall be shified to some other post. If that is not possible, the di.sabled bmployee shall be kept on a supemumerdry post until a suitable post is auailable or he attains superannuation. Besides, no promotion shall be denied to a person simply on ground of his/her di.sabilitA."

19. The Government of India also issued Office Memorandum dated 17.O7.2018, which reads as follows :- "The undersigned is directed to sag that tLte CCS (Leaue) Rules, 1972 Lwue been amended uide NotiJication G.S.R. lVo- 438 (E) dated. 03.04.2O18 (copg enclosed) to bing them in conformitg tuith the Rights of Persons uith Disabitities Act, 2016. Accordinglg, it hos notu been d.ecided that leaue applied under rule 2O, shall be binding. Further, ang leaue debited for the period(s) granted after receipt of the certificate of di.sabilitg of the Medical Autlaitg, shall be remitted back into the leaue account of the Gouentment sen)ant. TLe Certiftcate of Disabilitg is required to be issued in Form '3A' rtthich slnuld be signed bg a Gouernment doctor of a Gouemment medical board' F\rther, a Gouemment sen)dnt uho i.s gronted leaue in accordance uith the prouisions of clause (b) of sub rule (1) of rule 20 of CCS (Leaue) Rules, 1972, tle prouisions of section 2O of tle Rights of Persons tttith Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) slnll, suo-motu, applg. 2. These orders are to be effectiue from 19'04-2017- l8 20 . Tlrir ; C ourt, having considered the rival subrnissions made brr ear-ned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considere I .zLew- that the petitioner took treatnlent for brain sirr genr at yashoda Hospitat, Secunderabad, and after recc ve1-l2, he has submitted the joining re;lort on 21 .12-2ct16 a-long with the medicar fitness certificatt: issued by the cor.rpetent authority. However, without allora,ing the petitioner to join duty, he was asked to obtain a second opinion or r O,1. O 1 .2O 1Z , and, accordingly, the pe titioner obtained rr st:cond opinion and submitted the r_nedical report on :23.01.2017, however the petitionr:r nas not allow-ed to ioin duty. Such action of the respondents in not allowing th: petitioner to join duty is untenable. 21. Once the Court of Chief Commissioner, Neu, Delhi, vide order dat<:d 20 .OZ.2O 1g considered the claim of the petitioner and passed an order stating that there is a gross violation of Riglrts of persons with Disabilities Act, 2c)r6 by Respondent No. 1 and directed Respondent Nos.I an<l 2 to facilitate tht: petitioner, so that he can join duty rvithin 3O 19 days of issuance of the Order, and pay all the outstanding dues to the petitioner till date and submit a compliance report to- the Court within 45 days of issuance of this Order, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to follow the same and submit compliance report. Further, the Chief Commissioner held that as per Section 20 $l ofthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act' 2016 no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service; provided that' if an employeo' after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; provided further that it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post' he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation ' whichever is earlier' 22. After passing the above order' though the petitioner is making efforts to join the duty' on one pretext or the 20 other, t re respondent authorities are not allo wing the t,r join duty, and the same cannot be c.nsidered petition€r neglige n, :e on the part of the petitioner. Though the petition'e - is trying to join duty, the authorities have not allowed the 'cetitioner to join duty on one pretext or other and havr' dragged the matter for a long time. ,lhe said action of the respondents is illegal ard arbitrary. 23 . Fur _her, in the order relied upon by the learned counsel ftr the petitioner in W.p.No.S4g6 of 2O1[, dated I4.O9.2O|2. ,r,hile ailowing the said writ petition. it was observecl ,rs ltrilows :- In the result, the urit petition is alloued.. TLrc res,orndent Corporation i.s d.irected_ to pag full salary to tht. pe,titioner for the peiod. w.e.f. 21.O1.20O I upto 2 1 . C'-t.2()07 ofter calanlating tLte some as per tlLe pag : cale applicable to the post of Conductor for th.e releut tnt trtertod. The arrears sholt be paid. tuithin ,z peiort, o1- tu_to month_s from the d.ate of production c,f a coltA c'f this judgment before the respondent_ Corpc rati on along uith simple interest thereon @ 69,.5 p.a. u .e..1'. 21 .O2.2OO7 upto the date of pagment.,, 21

24. In the present case, the petitioner also never neglected to join tne aury, still the respondents knowingly or unknowingly dregged the matter. They did not allow the petitioner to join duty. Without the fault of the petitioner, the respondents treated the period from 22.12.2016 to 11.09'2018 as'not on duty'ard did not pay salar5r to the petitioner for the said period' If there is any negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondents can take action against the petitioner' But, in the instalt case, though the petitioner is ready to join duty after recovery, the respondents have not allowed him to join duty. Therefore, because of the mistakes of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer'

25. Moreover, the petitioner underwent brain surgery twice. Due to his health condition, he'could not continue in the same post. Considering the same, the respondents ought to have followed the Chief Commissioner's order' However, neither of the respondents followed the order of the Chief Commissioner. They accommodated the .l { i 22 petitionr r I nto service nor treated the leave period from 22.12.t2( 16 to 1l.O9.2Olg as,on duty,, w_hich ca.used the petitiorter su.ffer a lot. Thus, the respondents actton is not proper € nd for providing a_lternative employmen t to the petitione', thLe respondents have taken a rong trme, and it is a mistrke of the authorities, therefore, the resrrondents cannot e scal)e from their riab ity. Further. ur:.der the Disabilil ics .4 ct, the tota_l salar5z cannot be denieri to the petitioner 26' EverL on the query raised by the court undt:r what provisiorL, the leave period of the petitioner is tre;lted as extraordin rr1 leave, the learned Standing Counsel for the responden _s r:,lnnot satisfy the Court as to hor.l_ they have treated th: period of absence of the petitioner as an extraordinzrl, leave. Viewed from any angle, the respondents cannot deny the relief sought by the petitioner regarding -he payment of sarar5z from 22.12.2016 to 11.09.2018 Ttre petitioner being a physicaly challenged person, the tota-1 salar5z cannot be denied without his rault. 23 I

27. In those circumstalces, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pa! SOo/o sala_ry to the petitioner from 22.12.2016 to 11.09.2018. The rest of the impugned order holds good.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE copy// SD/-1. LAKSHMIdABU DEPUTY REGYRAR SECTION OPFICER One Fair Copy To The Hon,ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal)

1. 11 LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Cou( Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad. To,

4. The secretarv Ministrv of social Justice and Empowerment Union of rndia, New Delhi -1iOOo1 '

5. The Director K.C.l\ltaro. Ali Yava.r J_ung National lnstitute of Speech and H.earing Disabitities (divyansjan), el;oiii;;cd,;'rtd;letna?iiwliif Mumbai -400050

6. The Assistant Director, Ari yavar Jung Nationar rnstitute of speech and Hearing Disabitities (Divyangjan), Re6ion;t Ceni;e trlli;oi,ik;: N;;;'" Secunderabad -500 b09,

7. The Director General of Audit, (Central) Hyderabad 500004. B. One CC to SRI lvt.SR|KANTH, Advocate. [OPUC] 9 O1e CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), -'- -' -'! "'vis/,' .High Court for the State of Tetangana aiXVOeIOZO. tOpUCl

10.Two CD Copies. . BSK BS rt:€a -, .=:f;F r{G * o HIGH COURT {," DATED:03t0312025 ORDER WP.No.25762 ot 2022 THE S 'i,1 ,6 o 01 t,i | ?Un ()

1. z () l\t\ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b e( ':-.,F.fffi..-=]