Lamenting the actions of those who forced a man, who worked as a part-time sweeper at a Government Polytechnic, to dispose of students’ urine collected in a drum for a month, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered payment of Rs 2 lakh as compensation.
The man, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, had apprised the court that he was forced to do the ‘inhuman act’ despite him showing the inability to perform the task.
Taking a stern view, a bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya ordered the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate action/ proceedings in accordance with law against the official(s)/ person(s) guilty of violating the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The court observed that the petitioner suffered humiliation, ridicule, disgrace, mortification, and consequent embarrassment on account of acts and conduct attributable to the State and its instrumentalities.
While stating that the violation of legal rights has manifestation of violation of fundamental right, if remains un-redressed, the single-judge bench held, “The violator must not remain unpunished, for it will not only deny justice to the petitioner but also prove regressive in our progression and quest for achieving the objectives enshrined in the Constitution”.
THE CASE
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the man who worked at Government Polytechnic, Banikhet, Chamba district. He told the court that from December 5, 2017, to January 5, 2018, when the institute conducted its examination in a newly constructed building, the fourth floor had no toilet facility. So he was forced to keep a drum outside the examination centre for students to urinate, he said.
He said that he was further directed to empty the drum on the first floor by carrying the same down from the fourth floor and while doing so, one day, he fell on the staircase and suffered injuries.
He also stated that he made representations before the Chief Minister of the State as well as the Chief Justice seeking justice, but his grievance was not redressed, which forced him to file the instant petition.
However, the plea was opposed by the respondents who stated that in an inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, the allegations were found baseless.
The respondent institute had further submitted that the man had voluntarily agreed to perform the duty of urine disposal and was assigned the job in lieu of payment of extra remuneration at the rate of Rs. 55 per shift.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
However, the court observed that the law clearly prohibits manual scavenging. It referred to Section 5 of the Act of 2013 and opined that it specifically prohibits the employment and engagement of manual scavengers.
Therefore, the court held that the facts of the case revealed the `of the provisions contained in the Act of 2013.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment