The intervention by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in the case of a 70 per cent disabled lecturer is both a wake-up call and an indictment of the apathy that continues to define the approach of government departments towards persons with disabilities. The Tribunal’s strong observations on the transfer of a wheelchair-bound teacher to an inaccessible school and its categorical directions for the installation of ramps in all institutions under the School Education Department expose a harsh reality: despite progressive laws and clear Supreme Court mandates, basic accessibility infrastructure in schools and offices remains almost non-existent. The prevalent case is not merely an administrative transfer but a deeper failure of governance and empathy. A lecturer with over 70 per cent locomotor disability, dependent on a wheelchair, was transferred to a higher secondary school that does not even have a ramp. A building without a ramp is, by definition, inaccessible to individuals using a wheelchair. Such a transfer effectively denies the employee the ability to enter his workplace with dignity, safety, and independence. It reduces employment, guaranteed by law, to a daily struggle for physical survival.
What makes the matter even more disturbing is that this transfer contradicts existing legal safeguards. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with multiple government memorandums, clearly provides protection to persons with disabilities from routine or rotational transfers that cause hardship. These safeguards are binding obligations. Yet, in this case, the law was ignored, compassion was absent, and common sense was completely missing. The human cost of such bureaucratic insensitivity is immense. Transferring a wheelchair-bound teacher far away from his residence means forcing him to depend on public transport that is wholly unprepared for persons with mobility impairments. Add to this the harsh winter conditions and snowfall in Srinagar, and the situation becomes almost unimaginable. Expecting a person in a wheelchair to navigate snow-covered roads and inaccessible transport is not just impractical-it is inhuman.
Equally alarming is the broader context this case reveals. Schools and government offices, which should be spaces of inclusion and empowerment, remain hostile environments for persons with disabilities. Ramps are missing, staircases have no alternatives, toilets are unusable, and even basic facilities like drinking water points are beyond reach. This neglect persists despite a clear three-judge bench ruling from the Supreme Court directing the Centre to establish mandatory, legally enforceable accessibility standards within a fixed timeline. Yet, years after such directives, government departments continue to operate as if accessibility were optional or aspirational, rather than a non-negotiable right.
In this backdrop, the CAT’s order assumes great significance. By questioning the transfer, directing a reasoned decision on the teacher’s representation, and ordering the installation of ramps in all schools, the Tribunal has reaffirmed that accessibility is integral to fundamental rights. Importantly, this relief extends beyond one employee. It benefits students, parents, visitors, and future employees with similar mobility challenges. A ramp at a school does not serve one individual; it opens the institution to an entire section of society that has long been excluded.
However, tribunals and courts cannot be the primary drivers of inclusion. CAT has done its duty; the onus now lies squarely on government departments. Accessibility cannot be treated as a luxury or an afterthought. It is a basic necessity. When the State provides jobs to persons with disabilities, it assumes a responsibility to ensure that the workplace enables them to work with dignity and comfort. A little accommodation and adjustment-especially when mandated by law-is not a burden; it is a measure of a humane and civilised administration. Unnecessary harassment of disabled employees, forcing them into litigation for basic rights, serves no one’s cause. It wastes public resources, clogs courts, and inflicts avoidable mental and physical stress on individuals who are already fighting structural barriers every day. The solution is neither complex nor expensive. Start with ramps. Extend accessibility to classrooms, offices, toilets, and pathways. Enforce the law in letter and spirit. Accessibility is not charity. It is justice. And justice delayed or denied to persons with disabilities cannot be justified at all.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
