Introduction:

In the case National Power Training Institute vs. Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Ors.(W.P.(C) 11104/2024 & CM Appl. 45890/2024), the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, addressed the question of whether the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) holds the mandate to issue binding or adjudicatory orders under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). The court ruled that the CCPD does not possess the jurisdiction to pass such binding orders, noting that its functions under the RPWD Act are investigatory and recommendatory in nature. The ruling came after the CCPD issued an interim order staying the transfer of an employee (respondent no. 3) until the completion of proceedings before it, which the petitioner, the National Power Training Institute, challenged as being beyond the CCPD’s authority.

The case focused on a dispute between an employee with disabilities (respondent no. 3) and his employer (the petitioner) regarding a transfer order issued by the employer, which was later stayed by the CCPD. The petitioner contended that the CCPD had overstepped its authority by issuing the stay order, as the body lacks the power to adjudicate employment-related disputes. Respondent no. 3, however, argued that the CCPD was acting within its jurisdiction as outlined under Section 75 of the RPWD Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), argued that the CCPD had no jurisdiction to issue an interim order staying the transfer of respondent no. 3, as it acted beyond the scope of its authority under the RPWD Act. The petitioner contended that the CCPD’s role under the Act is limited to investigatory and recommendatory functions. It further argued that the CCPD cannot pass binding or adjudicatory orders, as it is not a tribunal or judicial authority capable of resolving employment-related disputes, including transfer orders.

The NPTI emphasized that the RPWD Act does not empower the CCPD to interfere with administrative actions such as transfers, particularly in the context of service-related disputes between employers and employees. They pointed out that respondent no. 3, a person with disabilities, had been employed as an Assistant Director at NPTI Faridabad since 2007. In June 2024, he was transferred to NPTI Durgapur, and after being relieved from his position in Faridabad in July 2024, respondent no. 3 failed to report to his new post, citing health reasons.

The petitioner argued that respondent no. 3’s complaint to the CCPD, alleging that his frequent transfers were driven by malafide intent, was an attempt to delay compliance with the transfer order. They maintained that the CCPD’s interim order, which stayed the transfer, was beyond its jurisdiction under the RPWD Act and that it amounted to a misuse of the CCPD’s authority. The petitioner requested the Delhi High Court to set aside the CCPD’s interim order as it was unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the RPWD Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

Respondent no. 3, a person with disabilities who had been employed as an Assistant Director at the National Power Training Institute since 2007, argued that the CCPD acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the interim stay on his transfer. He contended that the transfer orders he had received from the petitioner were discriminatory and amounted to harassment, as they were frequently issued without due consideration of his disability. Respondent no. 3 submitted that the CCPD is empowered under Section 75 of the RPWD Act to inquire into complaints regarding the deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and that the transfer in question was a violation of his rights under the Act.

Respondent no. 3 also referenced Section 75 of the RPWD Act, which grants the CCPD the authority to investigate complaints of rights violations and recommend corrective action. He maintained that his frequent transfers were not only unjust but also violated his rights as a person with disabilities, and that the CCPD had a responsibility to intervene in such matters. Respondent no. 3 argued that his transfer was an administrative decision motivated by malafide intent and that the CCPD was correct in staying the transfer pending further inquiry into the matter.

In response to the petitioner’s argument that the CCPD had exceeded its jurisdiction, respondent no. 3 contended that the CCPD’s investigatory powers under Section 75 of the RPWD Act implicitly allowed for interim orders to prevent further harm while inquiries were ongoing. He argued that the stay order was essential to protect his rights while the CCPD investigated his allegations of harassment and discrimination. Therefore, he requested that the Delhi High Court uphold the CCPD’s interim order.

Court’s Judgement:

The Delhi High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, ruled that the CCPD exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing an interim stay on the transfer of respondent no. 3. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while referring to Section 75 of the RPWD Act, clarified that the CCPD’s role is investigatory and recommendatory in nature, aimed at ensuring compliance with the rights and safeguards established under the RPWD Act. The court noted that the CCPD does not have the authority to pass binding or adjudicatory orders, as its mandate does not extend to deciding service-related disputes or issuing enforceable directions.

The court emphasized that the powers granted to the CCPD under Section 77 of the RPWD Act, which include summoning witnesses and receiving evidence, are procedural in nature and serve the purpose of conducting inquiries and investigations. These powers, however, do not extend to adjudicating disputes between an employer and an employee or issuing orders that halt administrative actions such as transfers.

Justice Narula referenced the case of Shipping Corporation of India vs. Haripada Shaileshwar Chaterjee (Writ Petition No. 10307/2015), where the Bombay High Court had observed that the CCPD’s authority does not extend to passing binding orders in the form of mandatory directions that assume the role of an adjudicatory body. In that case, the court had held that the CCPD could not entertain service-related disputes, as these were outside the scope of its jurisdiction under the RPWD Act. The Delhi High Court reiterated this principle, stating that the CCPD is not empowered to adjudicate employment-related disputes such as transfers.

The court also remarked that while the CCPD has the power to investigate complaints and make recommendations, it cannot issue interim orders that effectively halt administrative decisions such as employee transfers. The court found that the CCPD’s action in staying the transfer order of respondent no. 3 exceeded its investigatory and recommendatory powers under the RPWD Act.

In light of these observations, the Delhi High Court set aside the operative portion of the CCPD’s interim order that stayed the transfer of respondent no. 3. The court held that the CCPD had no legal authority to issue such an order and that its overreach was not supported by the provisions of the RPWD Act. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner’s request to quash the CCPD’s interim order and ruled that the transfer of respondent no. 3 should proceed as directed by the petitioner.